People just like owning things. Even if you didn't steal something like a street sign when in high school or college, surely you know somebody who did. They have no monetary value, just having one is proof of crime, and you could can go look at a stop sign any time you want. But there's still a thrill to having it up on your wall, and it can increase your status with your peer group.

I can't find the source, but I remember reading about how there's a lifecycle to stolen art. The thief sells it to a sketchy art dealer at a huge discount. The sketchy art dealer then sells it to a more legitimate dealer at less of a discount. Then, it either goes to a legitimate private collector or museum. The length of time between each step can span decades, but it becomes more valuable at each transition.

For a van Gogh that would never work. No legitimate art dealer would touch it. Regardless of the amount of time in between.

Give it enough time, and will anyone even know who the rightful owner is supposed to be? I have a feeling van Gogh's fame will probably outlast the Netherlands, let alone a claim of legal ownership by one museum.

I don't think many people acquire stuff on the basis it might be easily resellable to people who aren't criminals around the point the Netherlands and its national museums cease to exist.

When you have "enough" money you run out of things to purchase and start doing things for prestige among your social circle. For the right people I'm sure having a stolen van Gogh would increase that prestige.

The high end art community is about showing off and various scams with money (money laundering, loans, tax evasion, bribery, etc.) Pretty toxic stuff, but "I have so much money I don't know what to do with it all" is real and finds solutions.

Apparently high-priced items can be negotiated to be returned for ransom, this works by having the museum advertise a bounty for information and is being legitimized by a lawyer representing someone who received a tip about the whereabouts of the piece (some warehouse etc.)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/21/arts.artsnews

I mean, I have a Renoir print up in my house. If I had $100 billion I’d probably have the original up. There is a demand for art as a consumption good.

If we were discussing the theft of several million dollars from a bank, then only considering the monetary value of the theft makes sense. Here, though, it's an incomplete picture to only consider monetary value as the reason for the theft.

What about social capital?

Picture this - the leader of a particular organized crime ring wants to cinch the impression of complete control to his associates. What better way to do that than hang a painting like this on a wall in the dining room of his estate? It demonstrates not only that he has a literal van Gogh in his house, but also shows that when he wants something, he can just take it - painting on sale or no, he'll have it in his house.

The fact that this painting was stolen on van Gogh's birthday feeds my imagination that something like this really happened.

Rich person is 60 years old. He has so much money that he'll never spend it in his lifetime. So screw investment, he'll just hang it in his office and enjoy it for 24 years.

3. Art is an investment and can be seen as a way of diversifying.