Jelena Kolesnikova, Ugnius Čižiūnas
Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau Crime Investigation Service

SITUATION IN INVESTIGATING THEFTS OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTRY MEASURES TO INCREASE PREVENTION AND DETECTION RATE OF CRIME AGAINST CULTURAL PROPERTIES

The analysis of criminal situation in Lithuania in 10 months of the year 2001 has identified 41 crimes committed against movable cultural property (in ten month of the year 2000 there were 17 of such crimes reported, 19 over the same period in 1999). This type of crime is committed by taking advantage of uneven distribution of movable cultural properties across different regions, deficient protection and the fact that these properties have not been inventoried (except in museums).

Based on the type of objects against which theft (larceny) was committed, they fall into several groups:

1. Thefts of the church property;
2. Thefts of properties which are elements of small architecture pieces (crosses, cross poles with shrines, field chapels);
3. Thefts of items and collections from physical entities;
4. Thefts of museum properties.

Big towns mostly suffer from thefts of antique items from living premises. The common pray of the thieves are collectors, as thieves steal from their flats all kind of property, including collections of different artifacts (mostly numismatics), ancient art pieces, technical items, etc.

Least protected, easily sold and on demand abroad properties are the ones most often targeted by the thieves. Such are first of all artifacts related with the small architecture pieces, chapels, crosses, cross-poles, etc. A factor conducive for such thefts is a remote location of such chapels or crosses, at farmsteads, cemeteries, on the forest’s edge or at the crossroad where they are not protected and easily accessible by the criminals. The thieves favor such properties, as they are on demand abroad and the local antique shops are willing to purchase them. See map bellow ‘Thefts from field chapels’.

As a separate group should be identified thefts from religious communities prayer homes. A targeted operation ‘Antiques’ was organized in Lithuania in January 1999. The officers of the regional police headquarters were tasked to organize meetings with the representatives of the Catholic and Orthodox churches and other denominations to talk to them of prevention measures and to find out if the properties in their custody are inventoried and how they are protected. They also explained what more efficient security measures should be taken to insure better safety of their properties. Such inspections-visits were paid to 495 Catholic churches, 53 Orthodox churches, 32 religious communities. The operation revealed that both Catholic and Orthodox churches openly keep antique items most often without any security system. Most frequently the clergy rely on locks and bars, in some places even these measures do not exist. Since some of the prayer homes are in remote places, and additional security measures need additional financing, the tendency is to rely just on old locks and bars.

In reference to protection of the church properties it should be noted that only 19 Catholic churches, five Orthodox ones and one religious community have installed modern electronic security systems. Nine Catholic churches, three Orthodox ones and two religious communities have guards. Adequate security measures to protect their properties have been taken only in Kretinga, Kėdainiai, Utena, Anykščiai, Trakai, Panevėžys, Prienai and Skuodas regions and in Vilnius, Šiauliai and Druskininkai towns. In conclusion, a general situation regarding protection measures for the properties belonging to Catholic and Orthodox churches and religious communities is far from adequate.

The absence of inventory lists is also a source of great concern. There are about 1000 different prayer homes of different denominations in Lithuania, according to the CHC of the Lithuanian Culture Ministry. So far the property of only 41 Catholic churches and four Evangelical Reformers churches have been inventoried.

The shortage of funding prevented regional police headquarters from organizing the same operation this year to identify whether  protection has been improved and what response police recommendations received. However, based on analysis of the criminal situation in the country, it is impossible to state that protection of church properties has improved.

In reference to the thefts from churches, it is necessary to point out that most often thieves target Orthodox churches when they are after Orthodox icons. See map bellow ‘Thefts from Russian Orthodox churches’.

Upon breaking into a Catholic church, thieves first of all are after liturgical vessels, as there is a common belief that liturgical vessels are of precious metals, and they can be sold not only as works of art but also as precious metals. Thieves often loot crosses from the altars, candlesticks, paintings and other not big in size, yet valuable artifacts. Yet there are instances when criminals try to loot large items, therefore these have also to be protected properly. This year, e.g. thieves have stolen a bell and a gilded silver ampulla with inset gems. It was sold in Vilnius on Pilies street for 40 Lt (the real value is 5000 Lt). See map bellow ‘Thefts from Catholic churches’.

In conclusion, it is possible to state that effective prevention of crime against cultural properties thefts cannot be done by the police service alone. All owners and custodians should be taking better care of the protection of their properties, while the main function of the police would remain crime investigation. In this field police have achieved fair results. As a positive high profile example could serve the case of the theft of St. John of Nepomuk figurine. 15 November 2001 the sculpture of historical and artistic value disappeared from a field chapel in Jogminiai village (Šiauliai region). Police took several operative search actions and detained individuals who could be potential suspects in the theft case. In the course of investigation, besides the cited figurine of St John of Nepomuk, 106 other movable cultural properties (30 paintings, 30 sculpture pieces, 40 crosses and other antique items) were found. Presumably they had been looted in different regions across Lithuania. Currently the investigation is in progress, and other suspects are being identified.

Detection results in investigating cultural thefts largely depend on qualifications of individuals handling the case. Currently regional police headquarters do not have police officers specializing in crime related with art larceny. The main coordinator in investigation of these crimes currently is the Crime Investigation Service of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau. The officers on staff of this Service coordinate and control regional police headquarters in their preventive and investigative work in this particular field. The representatives of the Service attend conferences, seminars and other events focusing on questions of protection and fighting crime against cultural properties. Progressive experience taken from such events is utilized in preparing recommendations for police officers investigating crime cases against cultural properties.

March this year representatives of the Service attended a scientific-practical conference in Nizhni Novgorod town in the Russian Federation. The conference discussed the questions of fighting criminal acts against cultural properties and presented experience of the Russian Federation police service. It was also an opportunity to establish useful working ties. It is deplorable that inadequate financing of the Lithuanian police service made it impossible to participate at the international conference in Polish Republic, to learn the experience and to familiarize with the relevant legislation in other countries. This year it was impossible to organize specialized training for the Lithuanian police force, which was done in the year 1999–2000.

As it has already been mentioned, police contributes to prevention efforts of crime against cultural properties. This year the Police Department has earmarked 5,000 Lt to acquire special type of markers, which will be used for secret marking of properties with different religious denominations. The same amount was earmarked by the Department of Cultural Heritage Protection. In the year 2000 there was a suggestion for secret marking of cultural properties, to use luminescent markers, which the Interior Ministry had already stocked. Yet the Department of Cultural Heritage disagreed and proposed to use only the products by certified and known producers. Swedish company SICPA was indicated as offering products allowing protection of items in both, obvious and secret means, visible only by special equipment. The Department of Cultural Heritage Protection assigned the staff of  P. Gudynas Restoration Center to mediate in purchasing from SICPA luminiferous  markers harmless to cultural properties. The staff of P. Gudynas Restoration Center contacted SICPA by phone and received an answer that they could satisfy our needs, however, in reply to a written request the center received the answer that SICPA makes no markers with fluorescent materials. Then the International Cooperation Service of the Police Department contacted the cited firm to present their offer in response to the requirements by the Cultural Heritage Protection Department. So far we are waiting for the company’s offer. Upon purchasing of the markers, an operation of secret marking of cultural properties with the religious communities will be organized.

5 January this year, the officers of the Crime Investigation Service of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau participated at the working meetings at the Ministry of Culture on European Communities Board’s directive “On Restoring Cultural Objects Illicitly Exported from a Member State”. The meeting discussed how and under what conditions the directive should be implemented in the country and projected means and institutions to execute provisions of the directive. The meeting also analyzed whether there are no contradictions between the directive and the stipulations in the national legislation.

The facts cited indicate that police does not step aside in the campaign against cultural properties looting, but in close cooperation with other public authorities contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage.

With increasing rates of international crime, yet another function of police, which is international search and exchange of information on stolen cultural properties, becomes more important. This function is performed by the Interpol Lithuanian National Bureau of the Lithuanian Criminal Police International Relations Service.

The main activity of the Interpol Lithuanian National Bureau of the Lithuanian Criminal Police International Relations Service in the field of crime against cultural properties is initiating search abroad for cultural properties stolen in Lithuania and disseminating information on cultural properties stolen abroad. The Interpol Lithuanian National Bureau, on request by the national Interpol bureaus of other countries as well as local law enforcement institutions verifies and provides information on detained cultural properties.

The search on stolen cultural properties is announced through the General Secretariat of Interpol. For that, a certain form has to be filled in presenting a detailed description and picture of the stolen object. The stolen items and information presented on them have to meet certain criteria:

- a stolen object is of a certain commercial or cultural value;
-information is available on this particular object to facilitate identification in a group of similar objects;
- available pictures give a full image of the object;
- suspicion that the object might be exported is well grounded.

Having received information, the Interpol General Secretariat prepares, publishes and disseminates memos on stolen cultural properties to all the Interpol national bureaus. These reports are also forwarded to the World’s Customs Organization, UNESCO and the International Museums Organization. All the data on stolen cultural properties is stored on the Interpol General Secretariat’s database.

As of August 1999 the Interpol General Secretariat disseminates the information on stolen cultural properties on CD-ROMs, updates reach Interpol national bureaus every two months. The cited CD-ROMs store information on over 14,000 of stolen different cultural properties. In addition, the information on recent art thefts is posted on the official Interpol Internet Website at www.interpol.int. The page also contains information on recovered stolen cultural properties, also recovered cultural properties with yet unidentified ownership.

The information of cultural properties stolen abroad is forwarded to the National Boarder Protection Service, the Department of Customs and the Crime Investigation Service who publish it in the information bulletin put out by the Criminal Police; the interested institutions are also being informed.

In recent years, the Interpol Lithuanian National Bureau registered 45 informational cases related with cultural properties thefts and declared 291 searches of objects including Lithuania and abroad. It is deplorable that from 291 objects only one has so far been found.

Of the cited 45 informational cases, only two are related with cultural property thefts in Lithuania, though reports of the Crime Investigation Service and static data on crime indicate that crime rates against cultural properties in Lithuania are in fact tenfold. International search of objects stolen in Lithuania is declared in especially rare cases, as it has already been mentioned, cultural properties are very poorly inventoried. Frequently even museums fail to present a detailed description of an object or a photograph enabling identifying it in a group of similar objects. The absence of such information makes international search impossible. The same problems are encountered in the situations when there is a need to identify objects detained abroad, which have possibly been stolen in Lithuania. The best example to illustrate the problem is the case of two valuable Orthodox icons detained in the year 2000 close to the boarder of Slovakian Republic. The Interpol Slovakian National Bureau sent over a description and pictures of the icons for identification. The icons turned out to be two of the fifteen stolen icons from an Orthodox church in Ignalina region. The icons were identified from the photographs by the parishioners who were used to praying at these icons. However, when a handover of the icons started to be negotiated with the law enforcement agencies of Slovakia, it turned out that Lithuania could not present any documents directly proving ownership of the two. We could not provide either a conclusion by the experts with description of the items, or photographs, finally, even the priests could not confirm with full confidence the identity of the icons. The Slovakian law enforcement agency did not agree to hand over those ancient icons of great artistic value based only on the fact that they had been identified by the parishioners. Thus, it would be difficult to deny that it is our own fault that the cultural heritage of our country is sometimes irretrievably lost.

In summing up I would like to suggest some expedient measures to increase prevention and detection of crime against cultural properties:

1. To cooperate closely with other authorities in charge of cultural heritage protection on both, national and international levels;
2. To implement secret marking of the movable cultural properties, to prepare secret marking tactical recommendations;
3. To organize training for police service in the field of movable cultural properties protection and in investigating crime against this type of property;
4. To organize targeted operation “Antiques” in the areas of regional police headquarters where thefts of cultural properties tend to increase.