David Johnston for The New York Times reported on November 17 ("Goya Theft is Attributed to Inside Knowledge"):

Federal investigators have concluded that thieves armed with detailed shipping information were behind the removal of a Goya painting from a truck en route to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum from Ohio last week, law enforcement officials said Friday. 

The 1778 painting, “Children With a Cart,” was packed inside several nested crates aboard a locked unmarked truck used by a professional art transporter. The crated painting was removed from an outer shipping container in the truck while it was parked at a Howard Johnson Inn near Bartonsville, Pa. 

The two drivers checked into the hotel around 11 p.m. on Nov. 7, according to the motel manager, Faizal Bhimani. He said the white midsize truck was left in an unlighted parking lot adjacent to the hotel, out of sight of the hotel’s rooms and the main office. 

When the drivers returned to the truck at about 6:30 a.m. on Nov. 8, the locks had been broken and the painting, insured for $1 million, was gone, law enforcement officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Here's a link to the press release from the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio offering a $50,000 reward for the return of the Goya painting.

 Here's the link to the FBI's press release on November 20, 2006 upon recovery of Goya's "Children with Cart" within three weeks of the theft.

Here's a link to the NPR story of the FBI Art Crime Team which reports that the Goya painting stolen from the Toledo museum was recovered within 10 days.

Here's a link to an article in The Wall Street Journal online in 2011 with a motivation for the theft:

Robert K. Wittman, former head of the FBI's Art Crime team and now a security consultant in Philadelphia, notes that history's most infamous art thefts, including the 1990 Isabella Steward Gardner Museum heist in Boston, targeted works hanging on walls, not in transit. But he adds that art on the move is at its most vulnerable. 

Mr. Wittman helped recover a 1778 Goya masterpiece stolen off a truck in Pennsylvania in 2006 en route from the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio to the Guggenheim in New York. In that case, its two drivers made the dumb decision to check into a motel for a nap. They returned to find their parked truck busted open and the unmarked Goya crate gone. The thief didn't know what he had, and said he wanted to get rid of it. He didn't destroy the painting because "it kind of grew on me." He had a lawyer contact authorities saying he had found it in his basement—there was a $50,000 reward—but wound up pleading guilty and being sentenced to five years in prison.

Goya's 1778 "Children with Cart" is still on display at the Toledo Museum of Art.

Since crowd-sourcing was the goal, the FBI should be pleased. But we didn't really learn anything new beyond the assertion that some of the stolen paintings made their way to Philadelphia a decade ago. I was invited to speak with investigators alone for a few minutes after the news conference. They are dedicated men to be sure, and they were candid: they told me that for now the train has "gone cold."

 It was attention grabbing to hear them say they know the identities of the thieves. (Keeping the names secret is wise from an investigative standpoint -- imagine the media swarm.) But any careful follower of the case can boil the list of likely robbers down to three men -- all Boston-area felons. My belief is that two of the thieves are dead, and the third is in prison. The dead men will tell no tales, but there is still a chance to squeeze the guy behind bars.

A lot of these characters, chief among them a gangster named Carmello Merlino, also deceased, can be heard yapping on wiretaps about their plans to return the art for the $5 million reward money -- if only they could find it. It's the gang that couldn't steal straight.

Ulrich Boser, author of The Gardner Heist: The True Story of the World's Largest Unsolved Art Theft (HarperCollins Publishers, 2008), in The New York Times March 21 in "Learning from the Gardner Theft", comments on the long investigation into the paintings stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990:

FBI: An empty frame in the Dutch Room of the ISGM

by Catherine Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor

"As I have said many times in the past, this investigation is an excuse in finding 13 needles in a haystack by making the haystack smaller. The information we provided at the press conference shows that we continue this work, and that the haystack is smaller than ever."

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and the U. S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts continue to work on this investigation with the FBI.

You may find more information here on the FBI's website.

And here's a link to an article in Harvard Magazine featuring Anthony Amore.

In the article "Clearer Picture of Art Heist", Wall Street Journal's Jennifer Levitz outlined the media blitz FBI will understake to flush out art stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990:

Although it doesn't know the current whereabouts of the art, the FBI believes it might still be in the Philadelphia area. So the agency will launch a publicity campaign, soliciting tips using social media and, within a few weeks, putting up digital roadside billboards in and around Philadelphia, where it believes someone may have glimpsed—or even bought—the art without knowing of the tainted origin. The museum is offering a $5 million reward for a tip leading to the recovery. The theft represents the largest property crime in U.S. history, according to the FBI.

The FBI believes it has determined where the stolen art was transported in the years after the theft and that it knows the identity of the thieves, Richard DesLauriers, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, revealed for the first time in the 23-year investigation. “The FBI believes with a high degree of confidence that in the years after the theft, the art was transported to Connecticut and the Philadelphia region, and some of the art was taken to Philadelphia, where it was offered for sale by those responsible for the theft.” DesLauriers added, “With that same confidence, we have identified the thieves, who are members of a criminal organization with a base in the Mid-Atlantic states and New England.” After the attempted sale, which took place approximately a decade ago, the FBI’s knowledge of the art’s whereabouts is limited. 

Information is being sought from those who possess or know the whereabouts of the 13 stolen works of art—including rare paintings by Rembrandt and Vermeer—by publicizing new details about the case and continuing to highlight the $5 million reward for the return of the art. Although the FBI does not know where the art is currently located, the FBI is continuing its search, both in and beyond the Connecticut and Philadelphia areas. “With this announcement, we want to widen the ‘aperture of awareness’ of this crime to the reach the American public and others around the world,” said DesLauriers. 

Anthony Amore, the museum’s chief of security, noted that the reward is for “information that leads directly to the recovery of all of our items in good condition.” He further explained, “You don’t have to hand us the paintings to be eligible for the reward. We hope that through this media campaign, people will see how earnest we are in our attempts to pay this reward and make our institution whole. We simply want to recover our paintings and move forward. Today marks 23 years since the robbery. It’s time for these paintings to come home.” 

“The investigation into the Gardner Museum theft has been an active and aggressive effort, with law enforcement following leads and tracking down potential sources of information around the globe. Over the past three years, I have visited the museum several times, and each time I entered the Dutch Room and saw the empty frames, I was reminded of the enormous impact of this theft. I do remain optimistic that one day soon the paintings will be returned to their rightful place in the Fenway, as Mrs. Gardner intended,” said U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz. “As we have said in the past, the U.S. Attorney’s Office will consider the possibility of immunity from criminal prosecution for information that leads to the return of the paintings based on the set of facts and circumstances brought to our attention. Our primary goal is, and always has been, to have the paintings returned.” 

To recover stolen items and prosecute art and cultural property crime, the FBI has a specialized Art Crime Team of 14 special agents supported by special trial attorneys. The team investigates theft, fraud, looting, and trafficking across state and international lines, with estimated losses running as high as $6 billion annually. The FBI also runs the National Stolen Art File, a computerized index of stolen art and cultural properties that is used as a reference by law enforcement agencies worldwide. 

The FBI stressed that anyone with information about the artwork may contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324) or the museum directly or through a third party, said Special Agent Geoffrey Kelly, who is the lead investigator in the case and a member of the Art Crime Team. “In the past, people who realize they are in possession of stolen art have returned the art in a variety of ways, including through third parties, attorneys, and anonymously leaving items in churches or at police stations.” Tips may also be submitted online at https://tips.fbi.gov. 

The publicity campaign announced today includes a dedicated FBI webpage on the Gardner Museum theft, video postings on FBI social media sites, publicity on digital billboards in Philadelphia region, and a podcast. To view and listen to these items, visit the FBI’s new webpage about the theft: www.FBI.gov/gardner.

Jan Brueghel the Elder's  "Allegorie de la terre"

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief

Last night after looking up stolen snuffboxes on INTERPOL's Works of Art database, I curiously looked up Recovered Items and found a pair of paintings by Brueghel, Allegorie de la terre and Allegorie de l'eau, recovered in Marseille in June 2008. INTERPOL provides thumbnail images of the paintings; descriptions (in this case, for example, exterior scene with figures and animals, not religious); measurements; and the date of recovery. The rest of the information can be found from articles published online:

Brueghel's "Allegorie de l'eau"

Alfred Sisley's "Lane of Poplars at Moret"

According to plea documents, on Jan. 19, 2008, Ternus met in Barcelona with undercover FBI agents and with an unindicted co-conspirator. At the meeting, Ternus and his unindicted co-conspirator negotiated a two-part transaction with the undercover FBI agents. They would sell all four stolen paintings to the undercover agents for a total of 3 million Euros. Two of the paintings would be transferred in exchange for 1.5 million Euros, and the remaining two paintings would be transferred on a separate date for 1.5 million Euros. According to information entered at court, the defendant and his unindicted co-conspirator structured the two-part transaction to retain leverage with law enforcement in the event anyone was arrested upon the sale of the first two paintings. If this occurred, they intended to use the remaining two paintings to bargain for the release of anyone who was arrested. (Department of Justice)

Ternus had a criminal history:

In addition to the conspiracy charge, Ternus also pleaded guilty to a visa fraud charge before U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia A. Altonaga in Miami. During the plea, Ternus admitted that he fraudulently concealed his French criminal history to obtain a U.S. visa, which he then used to enter and remain in the United States. During the plea, Ternus admitted that, prior to applying for his U.S. visa, he had been arrested in France on at least seven separate occasions, and that he had been convicted in France of assault with a deadly weapon. Ternus also admitted that he knew the visa he obtained and used had been procured by falsely claiming to have no French criminal history. (Department of Justice)

Ternus challenges his conviction, arguing that the foreign commerce element in 18 U.S.C. § 2314 is “jurisdictional.” He contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case because there was insufficient evidence in the record that he conspired to transport the stolen paintings in foreign commerce. Ternus’ guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against him.

Virginia Curry and Richard Ellis at Q&A session  at the Southeastern Technical High School, September 2011

Warhol Heinz 57 box (FBI)

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that James Stephen Biear, 51, of Ossining, New York, was sentenced today to 10 years in prison for stealing $3.2 million and artwork, including Andy Warhol's silkscreen on a wooden crate, mimicking a Heinz 57 case of ketchup (the "Warhol Heinz 57 box"), from his former employer, an elderly millionaire. Biear was found guilty on November 22, 2010 of 10 counts of interstate transportation of stolen property, wire, mail, bank, and credit card fraud and money laundering, after a two-week jury trial.  Biear was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court by U. S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, who also presided over the trial. 

In addition to the prison term, which reflected sentencing enhancements for abusing a position of trust and a vulnerable victim, Judge Castel sentenced Biear to four years of supervised release, imposed a $3.5 million forfeiture judgment, and ordered him to pay a $1,000 special assessment fee.  Restitution will be determined at a later date.

Biear filed a false insurance claim in August 2009 for a painting by a 19th century English artist that he claimed had been stolen from him, prosecutors say.  After an apparent tip from Biear's ex-wife, authorities ultimately found the piece in Biear's attic.

On March 7th the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a statement: "Husband and Wife Plead Guilty to Roles in $3 Million Fraud Scheme Using Art as Collateral":

[Eugenio D.] Leo, 30, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and faces five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the loss to the victims.  [Jody L.] Meyer, 46, pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and faces a five-year term of probation and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the loss to the victims.  Both Leo and Meyer, who now reside in Harwood Heights, Illinois, will remain on bond pending sentencing, which is set for June 20, 2012 before Judge Kinkeade [Northern District of Texas].

In 2004, according to the FBI, the husband, a commodities broker, asked two clients to "invest their money by making short-term loans to museums in Europe." The FBI press release reports:

These loans would be secured by pieces of artwork worth significantly more than the loan value.

According to the FBI, the broker falsely reported to the client that the loan had been repaid with interest, used the original funds buy artwork, and resold it at a profit to himself.  The broker's wife falsely represented that her husband owned the artwork so that he "could obtain a loan (using the art as collateral) from the Art Capital Group for approximately $300,000", reported the FBI.

The Art Capital Group is the company that loaned money to photographer Annie Leibovitz against her work.  Felix Salmon of Reuters discussed the companies lending practices in 2009 here.

Virginia Curry with Richard Ellis earlier this year

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief

For twenty-four hours after the Los Angeles Times announced the capture of James "Whitey" Bulger last Wednesday evening, I followed the story of the capture of one of the FBI's most wanted. I'd read enough about the theft at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990 of 13 paintings, including Vermeer's The Concert and Rembrandt's "Storm in the Sea of Galilee" to know that Bulger is not thought to have engineered the St. Patrick's Day heist. However, for much of the two plus decades that the paintings have been missing from the walls of the Boston gallery, Bulger was also missing and the two mysteries intertwined themselves. The hope, the dream, the fantasy, of those following the Gardner theft is that maybe Bulger does know where the paintings are and will trade that information to negotiate down from a death sentence.

The area of Santa Monica that Bulger lived on Third Street, just north of the retail and entertainment area known as Third Street Promenade, is in the center of a destination beach community in one of the largest metropolitan area in the United States. In addition, he occupied a rent controlled apartment in Santa Monica. Rent-controlled apartments are basically inherited or found with the best of connections. No one gets a rent-controlled apartment in Santa Monica from the classified ads, never mind occupy it for 16 years. Who set up Whitey and his girlfriend in such sweet accommodations?

This morning's Boston Globe article restates that the FBI has no knowledge that Bulger had anything to do with the Gardner heist. And many people who have studied the case also agree. However, it is a bit disappointing to see that the FBI has put more energy into finding an aging gangster instead of locating priceless works of art. The families of the victims of Whitey Bulger have expressed their satisfaction in the media that Bulger was apprehended and that of course cannot be minimized. However, Bulger, an old man at 81, will be convicted and put in jail. He removed himself from organized crime in Boston almost two decades ago. But now that Osama bin Laden has been captured and killed and Bulger is now checked off the FBI's most wanted list, maybe Boston can focus on bringing home its masterpieces.

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin,

 ARCA Blog Editor-in-chief

LOS ANGELES, CA - In the U. S. District Court Arraignment Room 341, it took only six to seven minutes for James "Whitey" Bulger and his girlfriend, Catherine Grieg, to agree to be held without bail and to be sent back to Boston to face criminal charges he had fled more than 15 years ago. In addition, the fugitive who was thought to be living off of millions of dollars and who was once, albeit briefly, considered to be behind the world's largest art theft (the 1990 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum involving Vermeer's The Concert and Rembrandt's Storm of Gaililee), filled out the paperwork to get a court-appointed public defender.

The hearing, which began fairly promptly at about 2 p.m. was over by 2:14 p.m. Only 22 seats in room 341 had been allowed and journalists had a problem getting in, lining outside the hearing room, corralled by the U. S. Marshalls. One woman sitting on a bench outside the arraignment room, complained loudly on her cell phone that she had been waiting since 9:30 this morning to enter the room, but that she and her friend had been excluded from those let into the hearing room. She was one of the many family members waiting for the others regularly scheduled to see the judge (after Bulger and Grieg had seen the judge, the family members were counted by the U. S. Marshalls and told to go sit back down until they were called again, apparently to be seated after the media had vacated the court room).

One male journalist from ABC actually left the hearing room before it began to give up his seat for other print journalists. He explained to the line of journalists against the wall that his company already had radio and TV representatives in the room. Another journalist along the wall was told that if he was seeing giving a stare down again, he'd be removed from the building.

A reporter for Channel 7 in Boston left the hearing room and phoned in his observations: Bulger had been 'unfazed'... his 60-year-old girlfriend looked 75 even with her unlined surgically altered complexion because her hair was so white and she looked so thin...Bulger was unrecognizable ... Bulger answered the questions clearly. He agreed to be immediately "forthwith" transported by the U. S. Marshall Service back to Boston to face charges.

The U. S. Magistrate Judge was John McDermott and he was from Los Angeles as were all the personnel involved with the case. However, many of the press had boarded an early morning flight in Boston to arrive in Los Angeles for the afternoon hearing.

On the street, credit was given to the FBI for publicizing the image of Bulger's girlfriend on television shows purportedly of interest to women who might frequent beauty salons and other places that Bulger's girlfriend would visit -- the FBI played to the tendency for women to pay attention to how other women look.

Here are some updated links:

according to ABC, Whitey Bulger has lived in Santa Monica since 1996;

and Channel 7 in Boston filed it's report here online;

and to the Financial Times for how the FBI advertised for a fugitive's girlfriend.

Judge Arthur Tompkins, one of our ARCA Lecturers, just send me an email highlighting an anecdote in The New York Times about the lifestyle of a fugitive:

Janus Goodwin, 61, who lived on the same floor as Mr. Bulger and Ms. Greig, came to know the couple in 1999. She said Mr. Bulger rarely left the apartment. 

“When I would be invited in, he would always be lying on the sofa, watching TV,” Ms. Goodwin said. “He was very proud of his little art pieces, which were cheap knockoffs of Monet and Van Gogh.”

Judge Tompkins writes: "Makes you wonder, in an idle moment, if he had a stray but genuine Rembrandt or Vermeer lurking around somewhere ..."

Osama Bin Laden is dead, James "Whitey" Bulger has been captured, it would be nice if the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum found its stolen paintings.

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief

James "Whitey" Bulger will appear at 3 p.m. today in the Federal District Court (Central District) in Los Angeles. The Irish-American gangster is rumored to have attended mass at  Saint Monica Catholic Church, the most popular parish for the Westside of Los Angeles and a place of worship for many politicians and law enforcement.

This is the FBI's press release -- quite understated -- released today:

FBI Agents have arrested Top Ten Fugitive, James J. "Whitey" Bulger, and his companion, Catherine Greig, in California.

Recent publicity produced a tip which led agents to Santa Monica, California, where they located both Bulger and Greig at a residence early this evening.

Bulger and Greig were arrested without incident. Both are currently scheduled for an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California (downtown Los Angeles) on Thursday.

Here are some more links on the story, highlighting the FBI's successful publicity campaign to find the fugitive and his beauty-salon loving girlfriend: 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43504992/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23bulger.html?_r=3&hp

The Los Angeles Times reported at 8:35 p.m. Pacific Standard Time that the FBI arrested James "Whitey" Bulger this evening in Santa Monica, California. The former FBI informant and Boston criminal has been a fugitive since 1994. Bulger became the most wanted after the death of Osama Bin Laden. A $2 million reward was offered for information leading to his arrest.

The FBI has not yet released an official press release but their website for their "Ten Most Wanted" shows "Captured" under Bulger's photo.

In Ulrich Boser's book, The Gardner Heist: The True Story of the World's Largest Unsolved Art Theft, the author reports that at the time of the 1990 theft of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, that "Bulger was one of the most powerful gangsters in Boston, the head of the infamous Irish-American mob, the Winter Hill Gang, and during the 1970s and '80s, Bulger controlled the New England underworld with savage brutality."

Basically, although Bulger was not thought to have orchestrated the largest art theft in American history, such a crime could not have happened in Boston without him knowing about it. Maybe the 81-year-old Bulger would be willing to exchange information about the location of the paintings in exchange for leniency?

We can only hope.

Image of James "Whitey" Bulger above is from the FBI website.

In the most recent US News & World Report Ulrich Boser has written an article on the FBI Crime Team. While researching for this piece Boser referred to ARCA's Art Crime Facts page, and asked me why so many art crimes go unreported. In my response I discussed how objects from unknown archaeological sites have not yet been registered, studied, or cataloged prior to the theft and thus are left unnoticed. Museums may be reluctant to report art thefts because it highlights shortcomings in their security. An institution's and its leadership's respect and reputation are at stake as well.

Additionally, in my discussion I described how museums and cultural institutions are often wary of reporting thefts as it can discourage other institutions and individuals from loaning works of art for special exhibitions - the cash cow for many institutions. To confirm my suspicions that special exhibitions are a source of considerable income I examined the 2006-2007 financial reports of several high-profile art museums. For example, the Philadelphia Museum of Art reported an income of $1,839,449 from special exhibitions. This amounted to a shade over 29% of the museum's program service revenue ($6,281,637 - program service revenue is revenue from admissions, special exhibition ticket sales, concession sales etc., BUT not membership dues or government grants - usually the largest portions of an institution's total revenue). Another institution, the Wadsworth Atheneum reported that in 2007 its income from special exhibitions was more than double its income from regular admissions ($842,218 versus $401,527 respectively). Although special exhibitions can be great sources of income for museums, they are also instrumental in sustaining and attracting donors and grants.

While scrutinizing a number of institutions' balance sheets I found some other things of note regarding special exhibitions and an institution's spending. The Wadsworth Atheneum whose net assets total just a little over a tenth of that of the Art Institute of Chicago nevertheless tallies more in special exhibition expenses than the Art Institute ($1,066,435 versus 1,061,113 respectively). Evidently, the Wadsworth views special exhibitions as great opportunities for growth.

Earlier this month, in my post "Art Crime and Punishment" I discussed the need to establish punishment for committing various art crimes according to not only the harm inflicted on the public sphere, but also to the level of damage done to the work of art (its being beyond repair, or kept in proper humidity/temperature/preserving it while stolen). This post followed up one from December, "Numbers Game: Why Art and not a Ferrari?" that discussed the rates of success of criminals committing art theft compared to other crimes.

Recently, I researched documentation that supports this view that the certainty of punishment could be a motivation for crime. Currently, it is estimated that art theft cases are solved about 10% of the time. In August 1998, the National Center for Policy Analysis published an article on the Impact of Punishment on Crime. In "Certainty of Punishment vs. Severity of Punishment," the article discusses which is the greatest deterrent. The NCPA states,

In their decision making, prisoners are much more sensitive to changes in certainty than in severity of punishment. In terms of real-world application, the authors of the study speculate that "long prison terms are likely to be more impressive to lawmakers than lawbreakers." Supporting evidence for this viewpoint comes from a National Academy of Sciences panel which estimated that a 50 percent increase in the probability of incarceration prevents about twice as much violent crime as a 50 percent increase in the average term of incarceration. Likelihood of punishment often tends to affect property crimes more than violent and sexual offenses. This point is borne out in a study by Itzhak Goldberg and Frederick Nold showing that in communities where more people report burglaries to the police, fewer burglaries take place. A tendency to report crimes has an aggregate deterrent effect on criminals because it raises expectations of punishment. (reference to Itzhak Goldberg and Frederick C. Nold "Does Reporting Deter Burglars? An Empirical Analysis of Risk and Return in Crime," Review of Economics and Statistics 62, August 1980, pp. 424-31)

Accordingly, in light of the FBI's claim that 12.4%, 18.6%, and 12.6% of burglaries, larceny thefts, and motor vehicle thefts, respectively, were considered cleared by arrest or by exceptional means, it would be easy to conclude that the criminal mind would be drawn to art theft more so than other crimes. The greater the possibility for his or her getting away with art theft, as this study highlights, certainly must influence the criminal mind.

Some food for thought:
The NCPA states in the beginning of the excerpt that some studies show it is "prisoners" who are more sensitive to the certainty of punishment. This should be accounted for as not every art thief is a Myles Connor-type repeat offender. Nevertheless, the NCPA attempts to support a blanket claim by citing that the likelihood of punishment has a greater deterrence effect on nonviolent crimes as opposed to violent and sexual. The report also states that there is a decrease in burglary statistics in communities where more people report burglaries to the police.

Additionally, it would be interesting to see the art crime stats since the UK passed the "Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003." The Act in Section 1 provides conviction on indictment of up to 7 years imprisonment and/or a fine, where a person: dishonestly deals in a cultural object that is tainted, knowing or believing that the object is tainted (Simon Mackenzie and Green, Penny, "Criminalising the Market in Illicit Antiquities," http://ssrn.com/abstract=1004267). In his other research, Mackenzie questions the effectiveness of such an act in discouraging the illicit trade.

Rather than passing stricter legislation with severer penalties, it would appear that the Sûreté du Québec and RCMP's announcement to create a new squad dedicated to art related crimes is the proper course of action.