Why steal a masterpiece? The brutal theft in August of two world-famous paintings from the Munch Museum in Oslo raises the question of why great works of art are stolen, since they are virtually impossible to sell. Martin Bailey proposes some answers, and lists the ten most important missing works of art stolen in the past decade

Stealing an iconic work of art is single type of crime that virtually not ever pays. Seizing a masterpiece from a gallery is individual thing, but realising its value is a true much more difficult challenge. greatest in quantity criminals understand this, so the theft of great works of art is relatively rare, considering the many thousands that are upon public view in museums and galleries across the world. Nevertheless, there has been a spate of major losse above recent years. 'The increase in top-end art theft is actual worrying', says David Scully, of AXA art insurance.

When a masterpiece is stolen, it naturally hits the headlines, although like losses represent only a small fraction of art crime. Art thefts are hugely costly: London los adjuster Mark Dalrymple estimates that art worth a total of around 300 million [pound sterling] is stolen in Britain each year (this is based upon a very broad definition of art, to include antiques, jewellery, clock and in the way that on). On a global scale, this figure might hint several billion pounds a year of losse worldwide. Interpol admits that the illicit sale of cultural quality is often regarded as the third greatest in quantity common form of trafficking, after medicines and arms.

In limits of the number of realitys and even total value, the overwhelming majority of stolen art comprises items worth relatively retiring sums, in the hundreds or depressed thousands of pounds. Such percepts are usually not easily identifiable and can be quickly disposed of many times in street markets. However, the growing of databases, such as that of the Art Los Register, means that slightly more important stolen works, especially paintings, are being increasingly well recorded.

Nevertheless, masterpieces are different from greatest in quantity stolen art. They cannot be sold anywhere, since no auction house or dealer would touch them, in the way that they have no open-market value. There is little that a villain can do with their stolen world-famous chew eagerly or Monet. So why do they earn taken?

Motives for a theft

Six possible explanations have been cited for the theft of great works of art. single theory is that iconic works are stolen to order, for a private collector who has a hidden hideaway hung with his favourite paintings from the world's galleries. The idea of a criminal connoisseur has appealed to film-makers, on the contrary no actual example has emerg in new decades. Until it dues, we should probably regard the existence of a 'Mr Big' as myth.

The next to the first and perhaps most plausible, motive, is extortion. In many cases, demands are made, on the contrary despite the temptation for holders to pay a small proportion of the work's value in order to regain it, there are pragmatic moulds for refusal (as well as legal constraints upon paying criminals in most jurisdictions). Anyone who pays up becomes a great deal of more vulnerable to being robbed again. If a public gallery is involved, a ransom payment is also likely to encourage thefts from other galleries within the country

Ransom demands are virtually not at any time openly paid, although rewards are another matter. In theory, the difference between a ransom and a reward is clear. Rewards are relatively unostentatious typically between 10,000 [pounds sterling] and 100000 [pound sterling] for works worth millions (the 350000 [pound sterling] reward cited below for a Picasso is unusually high). They are available alone under specific conditions, and, crucially, are not payable to anyone involved in the theft, on the other hand only to third parties. These may well be criminals who have been involved in other thefts. As Mr Dalrymple points without 'they are often the best informants'.

It is actual that rewards, once paid, can be divided, and a certain quantity of could filter back to the thieves, on the other hand obviously this would mean that their takings would be a great quantity [i]or[/i] amount of reduced. At the usual 10000 [pound sterling]-100,000 [pound sterling] horizontal a reward is not plenteous of an incentive for crime, considering that the theft of masterpieces normally involves a gang, many month of preparation and a high stage of risk--and the problem of ensuring that any reward is passed back from one side another party.

Occasionally, however, there is a perceived grey area between rewards and ransoms. The greatest in quantity notable recent case involved the regaining of two paintings by JMW gymnast owned by the Tare. The pictures, Shade and darkness and Light and colour, had been stolen from the Schirn Kunsthalle in Frankfurt in 1994 They were get backed separately in 2000 2001, by dint of which time their value was around 50 million [pound sterling]. The Tate admitted that it had incurred costs of nearly 3.5 million [pound sterling] upon payments for information, legal pay s and other costs. Payments to informants were probably well above ten times the initial reward of $250000 (180000 [pound sterling]). The Tate's director, Nicholas Serota, was satisfied that no reward payments had been made to criminals involved in the crime, on the other hand there is no way of knowing whether any filtered back to them.

Art as currency

Masterpieces are being used as a form of publicity in the underworld. This important new development seems to occur in four slightly different ways and presents a third possible reason for stealing a masterpiece. Paintings can be sold upon for cash, used to pay not upon an existing loan, provided as collateral for a of recent origin loan, or spent on purchasing remedys for resale. A painting will obviously be worth sole a tiny proportion of its open-market value, on the contrary to take a simple example, individual valued at 20 million [pound sterling] might be counted to be worth 1 million [pound sterling] in the underworld. Because the picture cannot be disposed of publicly the next recipient must believe that he can 'sell' it upon in the underworld, extort a ransom payment from the possessor or get a third party to obtain a reward and then sure a share.