Why not just steal the painting, but never return it, and let it remain missing from the museum? I am not understanding the need for letting the museum have a forgery in its place.
Presumably the thief is commissioned first to steal it, before he steals it. It’s not like stealing a gold bar, where you could sell it to any of many willing buyers.
I think the idea is if the museum thinks it has the original artwork back, it won’t continue to look for the stolen artwork. Meanwhile, the mark believe he actually possesses the real thing.
Here is an article from The Los Angeles Times about a case in which Andy Warhol prints were stolen and replaced with color copies. The owner didn’t even realize that the art was replaced for several years.
IRAQ:
It is impossible to discover exactly how much destruction to archeological sites has happened since the 2003 invasion.[63] As late as 2004, US military maps still did not show archeological sites.[64] Archeologist Elizabeth Stone purchased satellite images of the seven thousand square kilometers in Iraq that contain many known sites.[65] She counted 1 837 new holes by comparing 2001-2002 with 2003 images.[66] Looters concentrated on sites that had the most marketable artifacts. Estimates of the number of looted artifacts from 2003-2005 are from 400 000 to 600 000 items. This number is 30-40 times greater than the number of artifacts stolen from the museum.[67] Britain alone between 2004-2006 seized 3-4 tons of plundered artifacts.
That is just one country and one species of artware. There are plenty of buyers for stolen goods.
I see - although I would imagine that, certain rich buyers, might actually get added excitement and thrill out of knowing that the museum is still searching for the stolen painting, not knowing that it is in Rich Buyer’s attic.
The late Kyril Bonfiglioli’s '70s masterpiece **Don’t Point That Thing At Me ** is wholly about a noted art thief and his client for a Goya.