“Are there any theories as to where the paintings are now?” Finn asked.
Porter looked at him. “Hundreds. We have chased over ten thousand tips, to no avail. There are more theories about who did this and why than there are police officers in Boston. No one has gotten it right yet, and the paintings have still not been found.”
“Do you have a favorite theory?” Kozlowski asked.
Porter considered the question. “I do. And I might share it with you if I had reason to believe you had legitimate information to give to me.” No one said anything. “I need more, gentlemen. Otherwise I can’t continue.”
“There were two men involved,” Finn said after a moment. “One had a list of the valuable paintings. The other didn’t know anything about art; he was just the entry man. He took advantage of the opportunity. That’s why some of what was stolen seemed worthless.”
“Your client?” Finn said nothing, and Porter smiled. “Of course. That would explain a lot. And it fits with some of the information we have.”
Finn felt as though he’d been taken. “So? Where do you think the paintings are now?” Finn demanded.
“I think the paintings are still here in Boston,” Porter said.
“Why?”
“You see,” Porter said, “first you have to try to get into the head of the person who planned this. To do that, you have to understand both the nature of the art theft industry and the psychology of the art thief.”
“Industry?” Finn said. “Can it really be called an industry?”
“Depends on what you consider an industry, Mr. Finn. We estimate stolen art to run in the range of six billion dollars a year.” Kozlowski let out an astonished whistle. “That’s according to the United Nations. It’s probably more. In terms of economics and volume, the illicit trade in art and cultural property ranks second only to the drug trade.”
“How do they move it all?”
“That’s the rub,” Porter said. “It’s become very difficult to move paintings and artwork in recent years. Art isn’t like most other commodities. It is, by its very nature, identifiable. Twenty or even ten years ago, that wasn’t much of a problem. A painting could be stolen in one country, held for a number of years and then sold in another country. Often the buyer would have no idea that the work was stolen at all. Many countries have laws that allow such an ‘innocent’ buyer to keep the painting even if it is later discovered to be a stolen work. However, using the Internet, law-enforcement agencies now cooperate with most of the world’s major art galleries and auction houses, and we have developed a catalogue of stolen art that is so comprehensive that it’s become difficult for any buyer to ‘accidentally’ buy a work that’s been stolen. Plus, the laws in most countries either have been or are in the process of being changed such that the purchaser must prove a reasonable provenance-a chain of authenticity and legal custody-in order to retain ownership. There has also been such an onslaught of lawsuits from people to recover stolen works going back even to World War II and the Holocaust, that the cost of buying or selling stolen art has become very often too high.”
“So why would anyone steal art?” Kozlowski asked. “Seems like it’s a lot of work for relatively little gain.”
“One would think so,” Porter said. “But the relative risk for thieves is still often well worth it. First of all, the dangers involved are low compared with other illegal activities. Much of the art in the world is held in private collections-in houses and estates-which have little or no real security. Even many of the museums in the world are minimally protected. The criminal penalties for art theft also tend to be significantly more lenient than those for other lucrative illegal activities-like trading in drugs or weapons. Finally, even if the paintings are difficult to fence, there are other ways to collect. Some are ransomed back to the museums. Even at a fraction of their value, the transaction can net the thieves millions. They hit museums or private residences and then offer to return the paintings for the insurance money.”
“Why didn’t that happen in this case?”
“The Gardner Museum was uninsured. It’s a private institution with one of the largest collections in the United States. At the time, they viewed the cost of insurance premiums as prohibitively expensive.”
“They had no insurance?” Finn was incredulous.
“None,” Porter replied. “That’s probably why no demand was made. Insurance is usually necessary for any institution to pay a ransom. In theory, there are other ways the thieves can profit. The theft could have been commissioned by some wealthy client with a fetish for these particular works. Or the works may have been collateralized in connection with other criminal activities.”
“I don’t understand,” Finn said.
“Stolen artwork has become a second currency among criminals. It’s traded as collateral for purchases of weapons or drugs. Art is often easier to transport than huge sums of cash, and makes transfers easier. In addition, drug and arms dealers are looking for ways to invest their enormous illegal profits. Stolen art is one place where they can plow huge sums of money.”
“But you don’t think that happened with the artwork stolen from the Gardner?”
Porter shook his head. “I don’t think so. It is possible, of course. Perhaps they are hanging right now on the wall of some grand mansion of one of the world’s great crime figures-sort of a real-life version of James Bond’s Dr. No. I think it’s too romantic a notion, though.”
“What makes you believe the paintings are still here, in Boston?”
Porter laughed bitterly. “Perhaps I’m just an optimist. I still have hope.”
“Why?”
“Because this is Boston,” Porter said. “In 1990, most crime in Boston was run by Whitey Bulger. He was at the height of his power. Nothing like this happened in Boston without his involvement. So I start with the assumption that Bulger was tied in. But it’s equally clear to me that Bulger didn’t plan this job himself.”
“Too complicated for him?” Kozlowski asked.
“It’s not the complication factor,” Porter responded. “It’s the subject matter. Bulger was a smart man, smart enough to recognize that this was outside of his area of expertise. Plus, it’s not clear that he would have had a good idea of how to move these effectively unless he already had a buyer.”
“So the question is, who was the buyer,” Kozlowski commented.
“Well, yes and no. In fact, it’s fairly obvious who the buyer would have been.”
“Who?”
“The IRA,” Porter said. “At the time, the Republican movement was the most active group in art theft. They were linked to dozens of high-profile thefts in the late eighties and early nineties throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. It was how the movement supported much of its paramilitary activities.”
“Terrorism,” Kozlowski corrected him.
“Yes,” Porter agreed. “Terrorism. There are those-particularly in Boston -who would take issue with that characterization, but I certainly don’t disagree. They funded a large portion of their operations with money made from the theft of precious art.”
Finn shook his head. “Art buying bullets. Ironic.”
“Ironic, perhaps,” Porter said, “but hardly surprising or unusual. Artwork has often played a significant role in funding terrorist activity-still does today. Consider Iraq. According to intelligence estimates, the artwork looted from the Iraqi museums after the American invasion is still providing a significant percentage of the revenue used by the terrorists there to fund their campaigns. Hitler made the capitalization of plundered art a centerpiece of his plans. Even as far back as the Greeks and Romans stolen art was used to fund insurrections and massive armies on both sides of virtually every dispute in history.”
“And you think the IRA sold the Gardner Museum paintings?”