On 19 October 2025, the world of culture was shocked by the news that art had been stolen from the Louvre. Four intruders infiltrated the Gallery of Apollo (Galerie d’Apollon) and in a matter of minutes took away eight precious royal and imperial jewels of the 19th century.
Among the stolen: emerald crown of Empress Eugenia, brooch, diadem, necklaces and earrings associated with Napoleon and his spouses. Yevgeny’s crown was soon found, but in a damaged state.
The Paris prosecutor’s office estimated the value of the stolen jewels at about 88 million euros, stressing that the historical and cultural value of these things is much higher than money.
INTERPOL has entered the stolen items into its database «Stolen Works of Art» and initiated an international search. The public and authorities perceived the robbery as a blow to France’s cultural heritage, because the Louvre is not just a museum, but an asset of national history.
However, it is worth noting that the robbery at the Louvre is not an isolated case in the recent wave of daring museum thefts. So, in 2023, the British Museum officially acknowledged the disappearance of some two thousand items, including gold artifacts and jewelry, some of which later appeared on eBay. In March 2020, a precious painting was stolen from the Zinger Museum in Laren, which temporarily exhibited Van Gogh’s painting «Spring Garden».
A few months later, in August, the painting by Dutch artist of the golden age Frans Hals «Two Laughing Boys» disappeared from the Museum van Mevrow van Arden in Lerdam. Other high-profile cases include the theft in 2019 of jewelry from the «Green Vaults» in Dresden worth about €113 million, organized by the Remmo family, and the disappearance of seven masterpieces from the Kynsthal Museum in Rotterdam, among them paintings by Picasso and Monet.
These examples illustrate that large-scale museum robberies are not a rarity, but rather a systemic threat to cultural heritage, which is becoming a commodity due to growing demand from private collectors. Burglary in the Louvre – a classic illustration of the interaction of «black» market, organized crime and interests of collectors.
The investigation also revealed serious shortcomings in the security system of the Louvre. According to the report of the highest audit authority of France, the management of the museum for many years postponed the renovation of security systems, paying attention to the purchases of exhibits and «external brilliance» of the museum.
Art experts warn that there is a high probability of dismantling and remelting stolen jewels, which deprives them of their historical value and allows them to enter the market as jewelry rather than cultural artifacts. However, the probability that the jewelry was not intended for resale as scrap, but for collectors, is not excluded and it is much higher.
This is particularly worrying because private collectors are motivated not so much by profit as by status, investment in cultural property, and long-term possession, regardless of the origin of the stolen item.
The Louvre is the most dramatic example to date, but not the only one. The history of crimes against art, in addition to those described above, is quite memorable. In the 1990s and 2000s, paintings by old masters, antique artifacts, jewelry and rare objects of decorative and applied art disappeared from museums and private collections.
There were often cases when «Christmas charity sales» served as a cover for international trafficking networks. One of the most famous episodes is the robbery of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston (1990), when the paintings of Vermeer, Rembrandt and Degas were stolen. These masterpieces have not been found yet, and most experts believe that they have long since disappeared in the depths of private collections or were used as «currency» within criminal groups.
These examples demonstrate that black markets, motivated by private collectors and criminal networks, have been operating for decades and are adapting to legal practice.
The topic of «reasonableness of risks» often becomes an internal justification for robbers trying to rationalize their own actions as economically and morally acceptable. On the one hand, it is purely economic calculation, because the value of stolen artifacts is so high that the potential profit is many times higher than the probability of being caught.
There is also a political aspect. High-profile cases like the robbery of the Louvre call into question the state’s ability to protect its cultural heritage, and where protection is underfunded and restorative processes are bogged down, criminals have a sense of impunity and permissiveness.
Events at the Louvre have once again raised questions about how effectively a modern society protects its cultural heritage. One of the key aspects is the role of collectors.
Today, with much of the stolen artifacts sitting in private hands, it is clear that owners of rare items should bear a much stricter responsibility to verify their origin. Moreover, the system itself could provide for their participation in restitution mechanisms to reduce the space for illicit trafficking.
Equally important is the topic of modernization of museum security. Chronic lack of investment in security systems remains a systemic problem. Audit showed that the Louvre for years postponed the renewal of infrastructure, giving priority to «cultural projects». With the rise of organized crime, this approach becomes risky. More coordinated action is also required at the international level. INTERPOL has already put stolen Louvre jewels into the global stolen jewelry database, which is an important step, but it does not solve the problem systematically. Tougher measures are needed against buyers, clandestine intermediaries and «grey» schemes, as well as increased liability for collectors who knowingly acquire dubious items.
Ultimately, the issue goes beyond forensics and economics. Cultural heritage is the foundation of social identity. Losing even a small artifact means losing part of the collective memory.
Therefore, the return of the stolen is not just a legal procedure, but an act of restoration of social dignity and the bond between generations, which requires the conscious support and participation of everyone.