The Louvre Heist: Art Theft and Art Crimes

By: Eric Fogle Editor-In-Chief

On October 19, 2025, four perpetrators took just seven minutes to steal eight pieces of jewelry from the world-famous Louvre museum, the value of which is estimated to be close to $100 million. In addition to the jewelry’s monetary value, the pieces have artistic, cultural, and historical significance.

In the days following the heist, the Louvre’s security measures became the topic of widespread concern and criticism. The heist itself brought art law, art crime, and whispers of the international art trade into public discourse. This column locates the 2025 Louvre heist in a larger conversation concerning the role of the museum, the nature and abundance of art theft, and the significant cultural losses resulting from art crimes.

The museum stands as an epicenter for cultural and historical education. Across continents and centuries, museum collections and galleries both educate and amaze those fortunate enough to visit them. Understandably, the paintings, jewelry, and sculptures housed by museums or in private collections can reach astonishing monetary values. A Gustav Klimt portrait recently sold for $236 million, for example.

Of course, art thefts are not limited to museums, though when museums are targeted, the story is much more likely to end up on the news. While there have been many instances of stolen paintings (see generally the 1990 theft from the Isabella Steward Gardner Museum in Boston, the most costly art heist in history), museums often house pieces that are genuine treasures, pieces facing a greater risk of being targeted. Such pieces that require additional protection are small, transportable objects that are materially value—gold crowns, pearl necklaces, jewelry with embedded gemstones—exactly the sort of objects that were targeted by the thieves here).

But though this heist has received much media attention, it is not the first of its kind. To view the 2025 Louvre heist as an isolated incident, in and out of the news cycle to make room for other temporary exhibits, not only ignores the prevalence of art thefts, but dismisses the cultural and historical harms that result from art thefts.

The mystery, secrecy, and opacity of the art world may contribute to the prevalence of art-related crimes. A stolen piece of art is more likely to flow from an anonymous seller to an anonymous buyer. As the pieces become more valuable, anonymity becomes all the more desirable.

Professor Brian Glassman, who teaches Art Law at CSU|LAW details the cultural significance of museum artwork and the cultural harms resulting from art thefts such as the recent theft from the Louvre.

“The jewels stolen in the recent Louvre Museum heist, if not recovered, would be an irreparable loss to France of part of its cultural heritage. But the loss would be suffered not only by the French people. The proof of that is in the numbers: some nine million people, from around the world, visit the Louvre every year.”

As Professor Glassman indicates, one way to measure the value of artwork is its public availability. Museums maximize this value by putting monumental achievements of artistic talent on display for public view. The more people who can bear witness to the beauty, the better. When a piece of artwork or historical artifact is stolen, its value derived from public observation and appreciation abruptly disappears. Professor Glassman continues:

“Thus, the world’s art treasures have a significance that extends far beyond the borders of individual countries. They help us learn more about ourselves, but also about other societies and cultures. And with that, all people and all nations have a collective responsibility to protect and preserve those treasures for future generations.”

For further reading, see Michael Finkel’s The Art Thief and, if possible, take Art Law with Professor Glassman.