Priceless

by Robert K. Wittman

  Kadhum believed that I was an American mobster, or at least some sort of art expert working for the mob. As a vouch, the father of one of his good friends had introduced us. The father, Kadhum believed, could be trusted because he’d hidden a stolen Renoir painting for their gang near Los Angeles for several years. But Kadhum remained wary, and for this reason I could not take the precautions I had taken in Madrid, insisting that I meet the bad guy with three “bodyguards.” On the Copenhagen job, I was working alone and unarmed.

  The missing masterpiece was tiny, a four-by-eight-inch Rembrandt self-portrait painted in 1630 at age twenty-four. One of the few the artist crafted on gilded copper, the painting glowed as if backlit. Still, Self-Portrait remains a sober piece. Young Rembrandt wears a dark cloak, a brown beret, and a half-smile as inviting and mysterious as the Mona Lisa’s. Once a centerpiece of the collection at the Swedish National Museum in Stockholm, Self-Portrait had vanished five years earlier, during one of the largest and most spectacular art heists in history.

  THE WELL-EXECUTED THEFT began three days before Christmas, 2000.

  About a half hour before the 5 p.m. closing time, a gang of six, possibly eight, Middle Eastern men spread out across Stockholm. It was already dark, the winter Scandinavian sun having set by mid-afternoon; sub-freezing temperatures kept most roads and sidewalks slick with packed snow and ice. The museum lies at the end of a short peninsula accessible only by three central Stockholm streets, and the thieves used this to their advantage, creating a set of barriers to cut it off from the rest of the city. On the first of the three streets, a gang member set a parked Ford on fire, creating a scene that drew the police, the fire department, and dozens of curious residents. On the second street, a gang member set a Mazda afire, drawing more fire trucks. To block the third road, the thieves laid spiked tire strips. Along the river at the museum’s edge, two gang members quietly docked an orange fifteen-foot getaway boat.

  A few minutes before closing, three men wearing hoodies—one carrying a machine gun, the others pistols—burst through the gallery’s double glass-door entrance. They ordered guards and patrons to the floor.

  “Stay calm,” the man with the machine gun said in Swedish. “Stay quiet and you won’t be hurt.”

  As one gunman held a handful of tourists, guards, and docents at bay, the others vaulted up the museum’s grand marble staircase to the second floor. The thieves turned right and pushed through a set of double doors, past marble sculptures and oil-on-canvas paintings. One headed straight for the Dutch Room and Rembrandt’s postcard-sized Self-Portrait. The other hit the French room and selected two Renoirs from 1878—Conversation with a Gardener and Young Parisian.

  Each thief pulled clippers from his pocket, snipped wires holding the frames to the walls, and stuffed the paintings into large black duffel bags. The three paintings were among the smallest in the museum—and that made them among the easiest to carry away. Together, they were worth an estimated $40 million. The men scurried back down to the lobby, rejoined their colleague, and ran out the front door. The entire robbery took just two and a half minutes. The three men, each carrying a stolen treasure across the icy street, turned left and ran for the waterfront, where they met their moored boat and roared away. The police, stuck in traffic caused by the diversion, didn’t arrive until 5:35 p.m., a good half an hour after the thieves left the dock.

  THE THEFT OF Self-Portrait and the Renoirs bruised not only the international art world, but also Swedish pride. The National Museum, a city landmark and model of Florentine and Venetian architecture that opened in 1866, held four centuries’ worth of European treasures, many of them collected by the enlightened King Gustav III.

  The Swedish police began their investigation with one big clue: During the robbery, another boater saw the three thieves dart down the dock and jump into their getaway boat. Their hurry, particularly in such icy conditions, caught the boater’s curiosity. Quietly, the witness followed the getaway boat as it sped across the Norrström River and snaked into a canal about a mile away. He found the orange boat abandoned by a small dock, still rocking in its own wake.

  The witness called police, and a picture of the boat was published in the next day’s newspapers. Within twenty-four hours, a man came forward to say he’d sold the orange boat for cash a few days earlier. The buyer had used a fake name but made the mistake of giving the seller his real cell phone number. Police traced the cell phone’s logs and this led them to a crew of small-time suburban crooks.

  Using phone wiretaps and surveillance, Swedish police were able to identify most members of the gang. In a quick sweep, they arrested a native Swede, a Russian, a Bulgarian, and three Iraqi brothers. In a search, police found Polaroid pictures of the missing works—blackmail-style photographs of the paintings next to recent newspapers. They did not find the actual paintings. Although a Swedish court convicted one man and sentenced him to several years in prison, the paintings remained at large.

  A year later, underworld sources in Sweden tipped police that someone seemed to be trying to sell one of the Renoirs on the black market. The police set up a sting in a Swedish coffee shop and recovered Conversation with a Gardener. From my base in Philadelphia, I was pleased to read of the arrest. But for the next four years, no one in law enforcement heard a word about the other Renoir or the Rembrandt.

  Then, in March 2005, I got a call from the FBI art crime investigator in Los Angeles, Chris Calarco.

  “I’m not sure what we have yet, or if this is anything, but I wanted to give you a heads-up,” he said. “A couple of guys on a wire out here heard something.”

  “Yeah?”

  “They think the subject might be trying to sell a Renoir.”

  “What do we know about him?”

  “Bulgarian. Here illegally since at least the 1990s. Moved here from Sweden, I think.”

  Sweden. “I’ll be damned,” I muttered to myself, and then I asked Calarco, “Is the painting he’s trying to sell Young Parisian?”

  Calarco said he would check and I filled him in on the 2000 Stockholm heist. He called back a week later. Yes, he said. It was Young Parisian. The target not only mentioned the painting by name, but he also seemed to speak regularly with a son still living in Stockholm. The target’s name was Igor Kostov, and he was suspected of dealing drugs and fencing stolen goods. He was sixty-six years old, an illegal East European immigrant living near Hollywood, worked at a pawnshop, and almost always wore a Members Only windbreaker that covered his sagging stomach. Kostov was a former boxer, an occupation confirmed by his flat nose and forehead scars.

  On the wire, Kostov spoke in rapid-fire, staccato sentences laced with his thick Bulgarian accent, and the agents found his incessant bragging amusing. I asked Calarco to thank the agents for their patience on the wire, for being smart enough to recognize the clues that suddenly transformed their case from a run-of-the-mill drug investigation into an international art rescue.

  This can’t be overstated. Most people don’t realize that working a wire is grunt work. Wiretaps can provide phenomenal tips and evidence, but the reality is that recording them is a tedious task, far less glamorous than portrayed in the movies or hour-long episodes of The Wire or The Sopranos. Wiretaps require hours, weeks, and often months of patience, waiting for calls, staring at a computer screen, typing notes, trying to string together snippets of conversations, interpreting code words, waiting for the bad guys to slip up and say something stupid. In the United States, unlike most other countries, the job is incredibly time-consuming because agents can’t simply record every call, then retrieve them all at the end of the day. To protect civil liberties, agents must listen to all calls live and record only those portions of a call that are relevant to the case. Thankfully, the case agents, Gary Bennett and Sean Sterle, had been paying attention when Kostov began talking about the Renoir.

  Bennett and Sterle reported that Kostov was offering to sell the painting for $300,000 and a sale appeared imminent. The FBI faced
a swift decision: Keep the drug investigation going or save the painting. It was not a difficult decision.

  The agents rushed to stake out his house. A few hours later, Kostov came out carrying a square package about the size of the Renoir and put it in his trunk. As he walked to the car door, the agents moved. They cut Kostov off and ordered him to the ground. They asked to see the package in the trunk. Sure, he said. The excited agents popped the trunk and pulled the package out. Inside, they found dry cleaning. Kostov laughed.

  Unamused, the agents took Kostov back to the FBI office for questioning. They sat him down in a windowless room and latched one of his handcuffs to a ring bolted to the top of the Formica interrogation table. They grilled him about the drugs, the stolen goods, and the painting.

  The Bulgarian professed innocence and played tough guy. Sterle and Bennett persisted: They calmly explained that they had hours of wiretaps. They told Kostov he faced ten years in prison. He’d get out when he was seventy-seven, if he lived that long. Once they had him sweating, the agents used a standard police interrogation tactic—they gave him an “out,” a way to stay out of prison. They promised that if he helped the FBI find the painting, they would urge the judge to go easy on him. The first step is yours, the agents told Kostov. Tell us where the painting is.

  Kostov melted slowly, like an ice sculpture in the L.A. heat. Ultimately, he admitted that his son had smuggled the Renoir to him from Sweden to sell on the American black market. Kostov sent the agents to a pawnshop, where they found Young Parisian hidden against a dusty wall, wrapped in towels and grocery shopping bags. The Renoir had a slight superficial scratch but otherwise looked OK.

  We were thrilled but kept the recovery secret. We planned to use Kostov as our vouch to try to rescue the remaining missing painting, the Rembrandt.

  We asked Kostov to call his son and say that he’d found a buyer willing to purchase the Renoir and the Rembrandt. Kostov agreed, promising to betray his son to save his own skin.

  Throughout the summer, I received updates on Kostov’s negotiations. I winced as I read the transcripts of calls with his son, the middleman in the talks with the thieves.

  “These guys are crazy,” the son warned from Stockholm.

  The father in Los Angeles seemed unimpressed, heartless even. “What are they going to do, kill you?” he said sarcastically. “Will they shoot you?”

  The son sounded resigned. “I don’t know. I don’t give a shit anymore.”

  Kostov did a nice job haggling the sellers down from $1.2 million to $600,000. Although we’d be getting the cash back, we had to negotiate as if real money was at stake. We agreed to pay $245,000 in cash up front and provide the balance once the paintings were sold. Kostov told them he would fly to Stockholm with an American art broker and the cash in September.

  Everything seemed lined up—until we contacted the Swedish authorities. International police operations are never easy. Every country has its own laws and procedures, of course, and they have to be respected. Whenever you work overseas, you have to remind yourself that you’re a guest of a foreign country. You can negotiate diplomatically but you can’t dictate terms. You’ve got to play by the host nation’s rules.

  Though extremely grateful to hear about the Renoir and eager to rescue the Rembrandt, the Swedes lamented that they simply could not grant permission for Kostov to enter the country. He was still a wanted man there, albeit for minor, decades-old crimes. Under Swedish law, the warrants could not be suspended for any reason, even temporarily.

  We’d have to find another way.

  * * *

  THE DIPLOMATS’ SEARCH for a solution gave me time to brush up on the Old Master.

  There is a romantic notion that Rembrandt rose from tough roots to greatness. It makes for a nice story, but I doubt it’s true. I say I doubt it’s true because most of what’s been written about Rembrandt is educated speculation. He didn’t keep a diary or copies of his letters and he gave no interviews. The artist compared most often to Mozart and Shakespeare had no contemporary biographer. In the twentieth century, historians wrote dozens of thick books about Rembrandt, many with differing accounts. Scholars can’t even agree on how many siblings he had. In recent years, some of Rembrandt’s later paintings have become suspect. Did the master really paint them? Or did his students? Was he playing games with us? I like all this uncertainty. It just adds to the Rembrandt mystique. In the months that I chased his Self-Portrait, I enjoyed getting to know the man.

  Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was just twenty-four years old when he painted Self-Portrait (1630). The painting isn’t significant because it’s a self-portrait—Rembrandt painted or sketched more than sixty self-portraits in his lifetime. It’s significant because he painted it during a seminal period in his life, within a year of his father’s death and of his decision to leave the comfort of his hometown for Amsterdam. Within four years, Rembrandt would be married and famous.

  He lived in what was arguably Holland’s greatest century, in a prosperous and peaceful democratic country between major wars. He was born in the Dutch town of Leiden, just south of Amsterdam and about a day’s walk from the North Sea coast. His father was an earnest fourth-generation miller who owned several plots of land, making him semi-prosperous. His mother was pious and bore nine children (or ten, depending on which scholar you believe). Five (or three) of them died at an early age. Rembrandt was among the youngest siblings and he spent more time in the classroom than working for his father. He attended the Latin School in Leiden from ages seven to fourteen, and then enrolled at the University of Leiden.

  Rembrandt didn’t last long in college. He knew it couldn’t prepare him for life as a painter. After one year, he quit to begin a three-year apprenticeship with a mediocre architectural painter, notable mostly because the artist taught him to sketch using stuffed animals. He took a second apprenticeship with the artist Pieter Lastman, who would become his more important mentor. Lastman worked with Rembrandt for about a year and is credited with teaching him how to paint with emotion.

  The Dutch master began his professional career at age nineteen or twenty, sharing a Leiden studio with Jan Lievens, a slightly older, more accomplished painter and a former child prodigy. Lievens and Rembrandt shared models, mimicked one another’s style, and began a lifelong friendship. Later, Rembrandt would be wrongly credited as the painter of some of Lievens’s best pieces.

  By 1630, the year Self-Portrait was painted, Rembrandt and Lievens began attracting notice as rising stars. That year, the poet Constantijn Huygens, secretary to the Prince of Orange, ruler of Holland, visited their studio. Afterward, Huygens wrote effusively of Rembrandt’s talent: “All this I compare with all the beauty that has been produced throughout the ages. This is what I would have those naïve beings know, who claim (and I have rebuked them for it before) that nothing created or expressed in words today has not been expressed or created in the past. I maintain that it did not occur to Protogenes, Apelles, or Parrhasius, nor could it occur to them, were they to return to earth, that a youth, a Dutchman, a beardless miller, could put so much into one human figure and depict it all.”

  The stolen Rembrandt might be the most significant self-portrait from the master’s final years in Leiden. In 1630, he was experimenting with what would become a signature technique—chiaroscuro, painting in light and shadow, varying shades of darkness to project shape on three-dimensional figures. The colors and shades are subtle.

  During this experimental period, Rembrandt painted and sketched himself in a dizzying array of emotions and appearances. Between 1629 and 1631, he captured his face in a dozen classic moments of surprise, anger, laughter, scorn. In one self-portrait, Rembrandt is middle-class, inquisitive, confident in a wide-brimmed hat. In the next, he appears as a beggar, forlorn, confused, even crazed. In nearly every painting, hair and lips take center stage—the hair, a wild, frizzy tangle or smoothly matted under a beret; the mouth, closed and pensive or cocked half-open with a whiff of mischie
f.

  Why did Rembrandt paint so many self-portraits?

  Some historians believe it was a form of autobiography. The scholar Kenneth Clark subscribes to this romantic view. “To follow his exploration of his own face is an experience like reading the works of the great Russian novelists.” More recently, other historians have come to a more practical conclusion. They believe the Dutch artist’s intentions were economic: He crafted so many self-portraits because he was a businessman and shrewd self-promoter. Self-portraits—in particular, expressive head and shoulder images known as “tronies”—were in vogue in seventeenth-century Europe, prized by wealthy aristocrats. For Rembrandt, the early self-portraits served the dual purpose of paying the bills and promoting the artist’s brand.

  I’m not sure which theory I like better. I don’t doubt that Rembrandt became a keen salesman later in life, but I’m skeptical he was thinking about this at age twenty-four, when he painted Self-Portrait. I think the painting is simply an honest representation of an important snapshot in art history. The atmosphere is sober, the hair neat, the mouth closed, the lips fused. Rembrandt looks pensive, mature, like a guy ready to set off from home to make his fortune in the big city.

  ULTIMATELY, THE DANES came to our rescue.

  Police in neighboring Denmark agreed to host our Rembrandt undercover sting in Copenhagen, which is easily accessible by train from Stockholm. In our Iraqi targets’ eyes, the change of venue only burnished Kostov’s criminal bona fides. When he explained—truthfully—that he was a wanted man in Sweden and couldn’t get a visa, they reacted with empathy.

  In mid-September, I flew to Copenhagen and met with Kostov, the three Los Angeles agents, our American embassy liaisons, and the local police. We were also joined by Eric Ives, the Major Crimes Unit Chief in Washington.

  The next morning I flew to Stockholm. Chief Inspector Magnus Olafsson of the Swedish National Police picked me up at the airport. On the ride to his office, he warned me about the two Iraqi suspects, brothers named Baha Kadhum and Dieya Kadhum. They were smart and ruthless, obviously violent. The Swedes were still wiretapping their cell phones and reported that the brothers were arguing over whether to trust me.