Stolen in Broad Daylight: A Theft that Shook Paris

Image by The New York Times

Inside the Louvre Heist

On the morning of October 19th at approximately 9:30 am, four individuals arrived at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France. Using a vehicle equipped with a mechanical lift, they accessed the Galerie d’Apollon balcony near the River Seine and entered the museum through a window using power tools. Once inside, two of the individuals threatened a security guard, forcing him to evacuate the premises. The intruders then cut through the protective glass of several display cases and removed eight items, including jewelled diadems, necklaces, earrings, and brooches described as “priceless” and of “immeasurable heritage value.” The entire operation lasted less than ten minutes, with the thieves departing on two scooters around 9:38 am. How such a theft of one of the world’s most renowned museums could occur in broad daylight, raises serious concerns about the security of France’s most precious art.

Recovery of the actual jewels is unlikely. According to Christopher Marinello, the CEO of Art Recovery International, if the jewels are not recovered in the first 48 hours, they have likely been broken up into smaller gems and sold. 

The heist at the Louvre museum exposes a disconnect between the high standard of care towards art imposed by French cultural heritage law and modern security threats.

Photo by ABC News

Institutional Liability and Duty of Care

According to French law, the Louvre holds both a civil and statutory duty of care to the patrimony entrusted to it. Under French cultural heritage law, the code du patrimoine, the art in the museum constitutes an inalienable part of France’s public heritage and belongs to the public. The code imposes a duty to French museums to conserve, restore, and study their collections of art. This heightened duty of conservation requires museums to provide adequate security to the museum’s collections. Furthermore, the museum has a civil duty of care owed to state and public institutions. Under Article L2112-1 of France’s General Code of Public Property, once property is registered through a public collection, it enters the public domain and is subject to legal protection. Furthermore, because the art is registered in the public domain it is considered an inalienable right of the public that the state must protect.

The ease of the most recent Louvre heist indicates that the museum has likely breached their duties of care imposed by French law. 

Photo by The New York Times

From the Mona Lisa to the Crown Jewels 

High profile cultural thefts are not unique to France, and these heists have exposed the fragility of France’s system for safeguarding national heritage. Although this incident is being referred to as a “wake-up call,” the recent heist is not the first time art has been stolen from the Louvre. Most notably, in 1911, Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was taken by a former Louvre employee, Vincenzo Peruggia. Peruggia hid the painting for two years before Italian authorities caught and prosecuted him. During his trial, he argued that his theft was an act of “repatriation”, claiming that France had wrongfully possessed the painting and was not the rightful owner. Although his defense was historically inaccurate, it raised foundational questions about national patrimony and cultural identity. His sentence, which was reduced on appeal, reflected the court's sympathy for his patriotic motives. The court’s decision to reduce his sentence on appeal demonstrated a judge’s willingness to consider cultural heritage based motives, even when they are linked to criminal activity. 

Photo by AP News

Nearly a century after the Mona Lisa heist, theOctober 2025 Louvre heist has yet again brought the cultural property debate into the spotlight. This theft coupled up with the most recent Louvre heist reveals holes in France’s protection. France’s legal framework for protecting public cultural heritage relies on outdated systems. France classifies major cultural items as ones owned by the state, meaning that they are public property that should be immune from seizure. However, these thefts emphasize the problems with this perspective. This doctrine creates an enormous structural weakness in modern security and prevents museums from utilizing modern day risk-management techniques. 

The principle of inalienability of public collections is not, on its own,  enough to protect France’s “national public collections.” Although French heritage law classifies that objects as inalienable, meaning that they cannot be sold, transferred, or disposed of by the State, this legal protection does not shield them from theft. It is mainly a property rule, not a safety measure. It does secure ownership in theory but there is no practical protection against the risks that are faced by modern museums. These public collections are not immune from being stolen and remain vulnerable to criminal acts. This gap exposes the deeper legal and institutional challenges France faces in safeguarding cultural heritage. The treatment of criminal heritage crimes in courts show that the law focuses more on symbolic statuses of what was stolen than on ensuring real security or meaningful accountability when museums in the first place fail to protect cultural property. 

After the Heist: The Future for the Louvre

In the wake of the heist, the Louvre has implemented a new $92 million security plan. The plan includes creating a position of “Security Coordinator” for the museum, an increase in the budget for staff training, updated security software, and an increase in police surveillance of the museum. The current director of the Louvre, Laurence des Cars, called the theft a “terrible failure.” The increased security measures are a positive and obvious step forward. 

The theft of the art pieces was not only a devastating loss of French heritage, but also a whopping one-hundred and two million dollar financial loss. Perhaps a modern adjustment would be private insurance for the museum’s art. Because the art is part of the public domain, French law prohibits it from being privately insured. A fine art insurance broker explained that had the art been privately insured, the costs of the jewels and damage would have been covered. However, this could create an issue of private ownership of public goods with great cultural significance. 

The Louvre heist exposed significant vulnerabilities in the museum’s security. In addition to the criminal penalties that will be faced by those responsible for the crime, it revealed the vulnerabilities in how public collections are protected. France now faces the challenge of addressing the legal measures that are needed to keep history safe while also addressing the museum’s shortcomings that allowed for such a quick theft to occur in one of the world’s most famous museums. Ultimately, this heist marks a key moment in today’s history and serves as a pivotal moment in today’s law, culture, and preservation of history. It is a reminder that legal protections mean little without practical implementations.

*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.