Venezuela's 'Thomas Crown Affair?' Stolen Matisse discovered in Miami.

In 2002, a Caracas art museum discovered the Matisse hanging there since 1981 had been swapped with a fake. This week an FBI sting in Miami recovered the original. What happened?

• A version of this post ran on the author's blog. The views expressed are the author's own.

An FBI sting operation in Miami led to the recovery of a Matisse painting entitled “Odalisque in Red Pants” owned by the Sofia Imber Museum of Modern Art in Caracas. The FBI agents posed as customers willing to buy the painting from a couple whose name has yet to be disclosed by the FBI.

The story started in 2002 when it was discovered that the Matisse hanging in the museum wall was a fake, after the Chavez administration had changed the board of the museum a couple of years earlier, including Ms. Imber, who had run it from its beginning (and purchased this particular painting for a relatively low price).

Initially there were accusations that the painting had disappeared after the management change, but others have suggested that the switch took place even before that, when the painting was lent to a Spanish exhibit in 1997. However, those at the museum until the management change have stated privately that they would have certainly noticed the switch. The current director of the museum has suggested it was an inside job, without ever explaining her statement.

RELATED: What do you know about Hugo Chavez?

The switch was discovered when a collector was offered the painting in 2001-2002 and began performing due diligence on the painting and wrote to the director of the museum. This led the museum to check the painting and the discovery that the one hanging in Caracas was a fake. The painting was offered to a number of collectors and rumors that it was for sale have recurred over the years.

Hopefully, with the recovery of the painting the full story of the switcheroo will be revealed and those responsible prosecuted.

For now, this is another picturesque (pun intended) story of the always devious Venezuelans in Government (no matter when the switch took place) always looking for an angle that will make them rich overnight.

– Miguel Octavio, a Venezuelan, is not a fan of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. You can read his blog here.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.