Good points, but, what is the situation under international law? In the example given, it was stolen and found again in the USA. On the other hand, what if , say, a picture disappears from an Italian church and reappears half a century later in the home of a very wealthy Brazilian?
If they reappear at all.
Look for it on the walls…of Castle Von Doom.
I don’t know about stolen property but Brazil has notorious laxity regarding extradition. (Although I’m sure with the current President there a person on the lam has to cough up some dough to stay put.)
This is the thing. It all comes down to the laws of the nation, its treaties with other nations and so on. So if Italy was on the other end, it would be fairly cooperative with returning items based on what I’ve seen.
It’s the “If they reappear at all.” part that keeps international stolen art trade going. Think of stolen art like illegal drugs. Sure, you’re not supposed to keep it, sell it, move it across international borders. But that doesn’t stop people. And since a painting or sculpture doesn’t scream “Crime!”, they’re even easier to move about and store.
Criminal law is national; there is no international criminal law in this field (there is, in fact, international criminal law, but only for war crimes and associated acts such as the “crime of aggression”, not for theft or fencing - viz, for instance, the Nuremberg trials). That means that the first thing a court needs to ascertain is whether it has jurisdiction to try a particular case. Such jurisdiction can, for instance, arise because the crime occurred on the territory of the court’s country, or because the defendant is a national of that country, or because the victim of the crime is a national of that country; the precise circumstances under which courts assume jurisdiction differ, but the typical ones are those I listed.
Once the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it can try a defendant, but the law it will apply will be the national criminal law of the court’s own country. That also extends to rules such as statutes of limitations; there are no international rules governing this matter either.
Problems arise in case of extradition. Most countries will extradite only on the basis of an explicit extradition treaty, and those treaties often provide for additional safeguards - e.g. that countries are not obliged to extradite their own nationals, or that extradition requires “double criminality”, i.e. the crime for which the defendant is to be extradited needs to be defined as a criminal offence in both the country seeking extradition and the country from which extradition is sought.
Is he holding it with his bare hands? I thought skin oils were bad for paintings & cause deterioration?
(Granted, bubble-wrapped in an IKEA bag probably isn’t ideal storage conditions anyway … And why the detail about it being IKEA? And why did I care enough to repeat that tidbit twice?)
He appears to be holding it by the frame. (?)
As I recall, too, extradition requires that the alleged crime be a crime in the country doing the extraditing too. Obviously this is not a problem for theft, provided the crime is appropriately covered by local statute. (I.e. can country A charge a person for a theft which happened in country B, and then expect country C to extradite?)
I realise I’m replying to an old post, but I can imagine for some people, knowing you secretly have in your possession something that the whole world knows to be missing, could be quite an exciting thing.
Insurance companies say they will work out a “finder’s fee” for the return of stolen artwork. There was some implication that the authorities would cooperate with the arrangement. That could just be a way to bait art thieves though.
I remember a documentary on this, where it was explained that thefts of artworks are actually pretty common.
They usually show up after a few years where someone – who will claim to be far removed from whoever originally stole the painting, and it’s almost impossible to know if this is true – tries to sell, or sometimes donate it back to the museum/gallery. And the museum/gallery will come to some deal, not paying full market price for it, or anything near that, but often paying something.
And yes, some also do get found by police but the documentary implied these are the minority or very most famous ones.
It’s annoying knowing that so and so painting is gone, but as alluded upthread, the bigger problem is people hoarding art as investments and storing them in a freeport where even the owners don’t get to see them.