[mysterypie]

> One of the most valuable art collections in Europe isn't housed in a museum visited by millions of tourists, but in this warehouse in the back of his police station. It's basically an evidence locker for stolen artifacts. This is a Caravaggio. What does a Caravaggio go for these days? It is millions of dollars. It is a paint stolen at the end of 1990 and was from a private house.

What's not explained is why are police keeping all this artwork? If you saw the 60 Minutes piece on this you'd see that it's an enormous evidence room full of artworks they are hoarding. They know where the multi-million dollar Caravaggio was stolen from in 1990. Why hasn't at least this particular piece been returned to its owner?

I also wonder why such an obvious question isn't answered in the story. I'm afraid that the answer might be that it doesn't fit the agenda of the story about sophisticated art thieves and super rich collectors. The reason might be that the Italian police declare that your art is a national treasure and they simply keep it. Or they impose an impossible burden of proof that you acquired it legally (similar to U.S. asset forfeiture laws) and require you to show a chain of receipts back to Caravaggio in 1602.

[joosters]

Why do you think there’s an agenda? The article talks about returning the stolen letters to their owners, so it’s not like the police are unwilling to repatriate stolen goods. Perhaps these artworks in their store have unknown owners or there are conflicting claims? And what do you do with antiquities like an ancient amphora? Who knows where it came from originally, so who do you return it to?

[mysterypie]

> Perhaps these artworks in their store have unknown owners

For unknown owners, fine. But they know where the Caravaggio came from. The article says, "Giovanni Prisco: Yes, and it is a paint stolen at the end of 1990 and was from a private house. It was discovered in the north of Italy."

I'm reading that as saying that it was stolen from someone's private house and that it was recovered somewhere else in the north of Italy.

[allannienhuis]

Perhaps the person from whom it was stolen can't prove they owned it legitimately? I expect stealing stolen goods has higher odds of not being reported so lower risk for the thieves. That said, stealing from people who might own stolen expensive art might not be the smartest thing to do... :)

[casefields]

That’s why OP asked if the burden of proof is so absurd that you have to show receipts back to 1602 by Carravaggio himself. This should be easily answered in the article but isn’t.

[catalogia]

That was nearly 30 years ago, maybe that owner is long dead and it's not clear who the rightful heir is?

[mike_d]

> ...was stolen from in 1990. Why hasn't at least this particular piece been returned to its owner?

Just because it was stolen in the 90s does not mean they have been holding on to it the whole time. It might have been recovered 6 months before this 60 Minutes episode was filmed and they are still holding it as evidence for a trial.

[pvaldes]

why are police keeping all this artwork?

Evidence locker. If the trial is in course the proofs are locked. There is a period of time between the painting stolen and when was found probably also.

And, I'm speculating, but as an old Caravaggio is really fragile, it could be easily distroyed when stolen. Even if returned to their owners is probably not valid to show again and is not fixable. The owner could prefer to avoid spend money on the storage of a ruined art as long as he/she can.