[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?