Another day, another theft from a museum and another tranche of articles alerting the thieves to the market value of what they’ve just stolen.
We cannot stop journalists researching the open-market value of stolen works of art, but should law enforcement authorities, art theft investigators and specialist art crime research agencies reveal values or not?
If you believe that stolen works of art have no economic value because they cannot be sold on the open market, then it follows there is no harm in revealing recent auction prices for comparable works.
However, if you believe, as I do, that thieves often derive real economic value from art theft (albeit only a fraction of legitimate market value) – through insurance ransoms or using the objects as collateral against other criminal commodities – then surely there is genuine harm in revealing recent market prices. Won’t this only encourage further thefts?
This is an edited post from the artknows blog
We cannot stop journalists researching the open-market value of stolen works of art, but should law enforcement authorities, art theft investigators and specialist art crime research agencies reveal values or not?
If you believe that stolen works of art have no economic value because they cannot be sold on the open market, then it follows there is no harm in revealing recent auction prices for comparable works.
However, if you believe, as I do, that thieves often derive real economic value from art theft (albeit only a fraction of legitimate market value) – through insurance ransoms or using the objects as collateral against other criminal commodities – then surely there is genuine harm in revealing recent market prices. Won’t this only encourage further thefts?
This is an edited post from the artknows blog
