[CPProt.net] The cost of art theft to the thief

[Museum Security Network / Cultural Property Protection Net (Ton Cremers)]

The cost of art theft to the thief

Scott Ford had the bad luck of being spotted by a caretaker on 13 March 2003 while he was loading his van full of antiques from the Strawbery Banke open-air museum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He was caught with the slightly damaged goods, worth some $300,000, later that day. Earlier this month he was sentenced to a four- to eight-year prison term. 

Henk B. and Octave D. got a lot more mileage out of the four-year term to which they too were sentenced for a museum job. The sea at Scheveningen and Leaving the Reformed Church in Nuenen, which they stole from the Van Gogh Museum in 2002 and which have not been recovered, are valued at $4 million. Even had Ford gotten away with his loot, he would only have earned $200 per detention diem, before fence's charge and taxes. The Van Gogh team grossed nearly ten times as much apiece. Put in different terms, one could say that the sentence laid down by the American judge was ten times heavier than the Dutch one. This may conform in general to patterns of sentencing in the two countries, but it still comes as a shock that Dutch courts do not take art theft more seriously than they do. 

An even more shocking failure of Dutch justice with regard to the protection of cultural heritage, even if the amounts are smaller, is the case of Alexander Polman. During his five years as curator of the Army Museum in Delft, Polman betrayed the public trust and the museum profession by stealing about 1,000 paintings, drawings and - mainly - prints he clipped out of books in the museum library. Last year he was sentenced to 22 months, less than one day per item stolen. The courts did not award the museum its claim of €52,000 for the value of the unrecovered goods. Ton Cremers, the museum security specialist who was consulted in the case, tells me, "They'll never know the full extent of the loss. The creep, who was hired to digitize the collection, also removed the old registration records. After he was caught he did not cooperate in any way, shape or form to repair the damage or help us recover the objects. The Department of Justice was only interested in the perpetrator, not the art." 

Sentencing is not only a matter of punishment; it is also a weapon that the state can use to recover loot. The prospect of receiving a light sentence lowers whatever motivation a thief might have to cooperate in this way before trial. This effect is compounded by the absurdly short statute of limitations for theft in the Netherlands. After a mere three years the victim loses title to stolen goods that were acquired "in good faith" (give it a name!) by a third party; after 20 years even the burglar can sell his take freely. The thief of Dutch museum art who has gotten off with the goods can look forward to a carefree old age. 

When it comes to professional thieves, heavier sentences will operate as a deterrent. Every factor that raises the cost of business - in this case the business of stealing art from museums - will make a heist less attractive. And as for the museum employees who steal our art because it's so easy to cheat when you're being trusted, I say, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." 



© Gary Schwartz 2005. Published in Loekie Schwartz's Dutch translation in Het Financieele Dagblad, Amsterdam, 23 April 2005 

Responses to gary at garyschwartzarthistorian.nl

Other columns on the Schwartzlist:
http://www.garyschwartzarthistorian.nl/index.php?page_id=8