27 May 2008
Press Release from ARCA Director, Noah Charney

Please note that ARCA has not been officially consulted about this case, and is not privvy to knowledge beyond international press statements.

“An understanding of art crime can lead to the following probabilities regarding the recent theft of Mexican jewelry and sculptures by Canadian artist Bill Reid from the University of British Columbia Museum.

-This theft was clearly targeted, well-planned and executed by professional criminals, most likely with ties to Organized Crime.

-Reid is a Canadian icon, but there is a limited international market for Reid’s work.  His work is also easily identifiable, making sale abroad difficult to achieve and unlikely.

-The least likely scenario in this, and all art thefts, is a theft commissioned by a collector.  There have been almost no proven cases of proactive criminal collection outside of war in history.  The theft was almost certainly commissioned, but by a criminal administrator, most likely a member of an organized crime syndicate, with a business plan of how to profit from the theft.  The stolen goods are destined to make a profit, almost certainly not via a collector.

-Recent years have seen a rash of international thefts of objects, both artistic and otherwise, made of semi-precious metals (particularly bronze and copper).  This is due to the significant increase in raw metal prices on the international market.  Thefts of gold objects have not risen likewise, but the danger remains that the material is all the thieves were looking for.  Criminals often learn the value of stolen art only from the subsequent reports of the media.  Though the works were valued at $2 million, and the gold might bring in only $10,000-20,000, keep in mind that, to a criminal, the material sale would yield $10,000-20,000 more than they had before the theft.  Small profits at lower risk are profits nonetheless.

-The fact that gold works not by Bill Reid were also taken further suggests that gold material was the primary motivator.

-The best chance at recovering the objects and preventing their destruction is to do just what the museum has done—offer a cash reward, no questions asked, that is of greater value than the raw gold would fetch.  In the case of Reid’s work, and his iconic status in Canada, this is an understandable move that should be sanctioned.  But in general, the payment of a reward or ransom to criminals encourages future such crimes, as it shows criminals that their crime can pay.

-There is a strong possibility that the museum or its insurers will be quietly offered the objects for a ransom that would approach the actual value of the works.  In the case of art, the materials of which have no intrinsic value (canvas paintings, for instance), it is strongly disrecommended to consider paying a ransom, as thieves have few other options if the ransom is not paid, and often simply abandon the stolen art when ransom fails.  In this case, however, there is significant intrinsic value in the materials of the stolen art.  If ransom fails, the works will almost certainly be melted and sold, thereby removing the evidence from the possession of the thieves and still profiting from the theft.

In conclusion, the most probable scenarios are 1) the thieves will attempt to ransom back the works and, failing to do so, they will melt them and sell the gold, 2) the thieves will accept a mid-ground profit between melted gold and ransom, taking the reward, if its acceptance comes with a payment method that will assure their safety from arrest, or 3) the objects have already been melted and sold.”

ARCA, The Association for Research into Crimes against Art, is a non-profit think tank and research group on art crime. 

Please email as a PDF attachment to director@artcrime.info any article which will quote from, or refer to, this Press Release or ARCA.