Museums & Institutions
Experts Sound Alarm Over the New Normal of Museum Heists
“This is the dawn of the three-minute heist," warns one of the world's top experts on art theft.
“This is the dawn of the three-minute heist," warns one of the world's top experts on art theft.
Eileen Kinsella
ShareShare This Article
Roughly five months after a brazen daylight theft at the Louvre museum in Paris saw thieves make off with a jewelry haul estimated at roughly $102 million (€88 million), another European museum has been hit.
In this case, it was a lesser-known regional museum in Parma, Italy, a villa that houses the Magnani Rocca Foundation. But the names behind these artworks stolen, in a daring middle-of-the-night break-in that took all of three minutes, are world-class—Paul Cézanne, Henri Matisse, and Pierre-Auguste Renoir. The estimated value of the stolen works is roughly $10 million.
“The Louvre theft was supposed to be a wake-up call to museums everywhere, especially small museums,” Christopher Marinello, CEO and founder of Art Recovery International, told me. “If you could hit the Louvre you could get in anywhere.” He thought the headline-grabbing theft would have prompted widespread reevaulation by museum security teams. But that does not appear to have been the case.
So, what happened this time around? How and why is this latest incident different from the Louvre theft, which targeted the royal crown jewels? How will investigations play out? And perhaps most importantly, what are the chances of recovering these priceless paintings? We put these questions to the world’s top museum security and art theft experts. Here’s what we found out.
“This is the dawn of the three-minute heist, and we’ve really got to take notice of this,” said Marinello, one of the world’s top experts on art theft. “With a crowbar, a ski mask, and three minutes, you can do almost anything. That’s what concerns me.”
However, Anthony Amore, director of security at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston and author of several books on art crime, begs to differ. “That’s not uncommon,” he said of the speed of the heist, adding that his research shows most thefts take between three to nine minutes.
A security guard stands in front of the Pyramide du Louvre at the museum’s reopening on October 22, 2025, following the robbery. Photo: Thibaud Moritz / AFP via Getty Images.
The Louvre heist, for instance, took about seven minutes. Further, experts including Marinello and Amore noted how the jewel thieves in France bought some extra time by donning bright neon construction worker vests that helped them blend in before the guards and onlookers caught on to them.
“That’s why the Louvre thieves were able to take an extra five minutes because people saw them and were like ‘Oh, they must be part of the crew,” said Marinello.
To be fair, Marinello gives props to the Magnani-Rocca security team for its response time. “Four minutes is not a bad response team time for the security to have the police arrive. That’s pretty good for outside of a major city but obviously not good enough.”
Since little is known about the actual details of the theft, Amore questioned whether the break-in immediately tripped the alarm or if there was something of a delay. According to the BBC, museum officials said that the thieves seemed to have intended on stealing more were it not for the private collection’s alarms going off and police being called.
Amore wrote in his Substack column: “I doubt they were startled by the alarm. They’ve burgled before, and expect it. It’s curious that, based on reporting, the alarm took three minutes to be tripped.”
The Villa Magnani Rocca site of the Magnani Rocca Foundation Gallery in Parma, Italy. Photo: Roberto Serra – Iguana Press / Getty Images.
Unlike the Louvre heist—which took place during museum operating hours, was witnessed and documented by many onlookers, and immediately went viral around the world—the Magnani-Rocca robbery happened in the middle of the night on March 22. The museum was closed the next day. News about the theft didn’t start trickling out and circulating until several days later in local media reports. Amore told me it’s not clear if the villa had overnight guards onsite. That might raise the potential for the theft to have been an inside job.
The museum did not respond to my request for comment.
Marinelllo, who has worked closely with the Carabinieri on previous cases, told me there might be a good reason for this. “Initially they like to keep things close to vest, do their investigative work, and of course check out any possible insider connection,” he explained. “By going public, it’s their way of saying: ‘We don’t have any concrete leads and we’re now pleading to the public for information and letting everyone know that these were stolen. If they should show up, let us know.”
“The hope is that these guys who stole these [paintings] are trying to shop them. That’s the best case scenario,” said Amore. “If they just put them into hiding, then you don’t find them.”
Marinello agrees, even if that runs counter to the old Hollywood trope of a criminal mastermind orchestrating or commissioning a specific art theft. “I’ve never encountered a theft to order. They’re going to try to sell these and that’s what’s going to get them caught. They may try to move them to Belgium, or Eastern Europe, or try to find a buyer in the Middle East but they’re going to have a hard time unloading them,” he said.
In what may be an unexpected bright spot, while the Louvre thieves might melt down the stolen jewels for street or material value, there’s barely a chance that the paintings will be similarly dismantled. “Even the worst philistine knows that if you destroy it, it’s useless,” said Amore. “Paintings stay intact. You’d be hard pressed to find bona fide examples of great art being stolen and destroyed.”
The former Sotheby's dealmaker weighs in on 'dark' art sales, deal flow, and his next big move in the art world.
Naomi Rea
ShareShare This Article
This article is part of the Artnet Intelligence Report: Year Ahead 2026. Drawing on in-depth analysis of the past year’s market performance, the latest edition offers a data-driven snapshot of the art world today—from recent auction results to the artists shaping the global conversation.
It was intriguing to learn that you’re planning a new secondary-market gallery in New York with two other industry veterans, Marc Glimcher and Emmanuel Di Donna. Why launch now, when parts of the gallery system appear to be under pressure?
It’s early days, but we’re super excited, and I think it’s a good moment. The markets have stabilized and are picking up, which should be a tailwind. People aren’t exuberant, but they’re more optimistic than they’ve been over the last couple of years, especially in the secondary market, which I think is quite a good backdrop.
We come at it from a fresh start. Some historic galleries have significant overhead and scale. We’re not trying to be all things to all people, we’re not looking to have 10 spaces, and we’re not looking to replicate models that have come before. The three of us bring collective expertise that makes sense at this moment. It feels like the right time to start something greenfield, where it might not have been five or 10 years ago.
Private auctions have emerged as a notable format in recent years. What can you tell me about these “dark” sales?
They’ve been a successful innovation because they blend discretion with urgency. That was born out of the Covid moment—how do you create excitement and a deadline?
In a way, auctions are similar to art fairs or gallery shows: They create a moment. At the upper end of the market, there appears to have been strong competition in private auctions. I’m not sure how many the industry can do in a year, but it appears that they’re working. Being invited to something special, having the opportunity to bid on rarefied, unique, hard-to-replicate material, coupled with a sense of competition—I understand why that appeals to both consignors and buyers.
Installation view, “Agnes Martin: Innocent Love,” 540 West 25th Street, New York, NY 10001. November 7 –December 20, 2025. Photo: courtesy Pace Gallery.
The art market has traditionally operated on high margins and relatively low volume. In a period of correction, what has to change?
Every dealer has their own way in which they do things. Some are lower volume and higher margin, and some are higher volume and lower margin. I’ve always been of the view that volume begets volume, if you’re doing the best for sellers and buyers.
There is something about transparency entering the world, and negotiated commissions, which is leading to not necessarily compressed margins but certainly not oversized margins. Intermediaries certainly have absorbed some of that margin. Buyers and sellers, in a market with less depth of bid, have been able to negotiate harder.
The question will be, as the market recalibrates higher and competition increases, what those spreads look like. But I do think we’re moving toward a world of a more constant margin. We’ve seen that in every other business, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t happen here, despite the fact that it is slightly more opaque than other trading industries.
You can either hold the line on margin and not do a deal or do a deal at a lower margin and hope to do it at a better margin down the road. I do think that sellers and buyers appreciate the liquidity and the fluidity of doing deals versus not doing deals, which has always been my view.
What do you see as the risks of introducing a more fluid resale expectation to the market?
I don’t think we’ve seen an increase in that kind of velocity at this moment. I actually think the fluidity has slowed as opposed to increased, as the market has gone more traditional in its taste and there’s been less exuberance in buying and selling of the hot new thing.
I think at this moment buyers are being more thoughtful and disciplined. To be fair, it’s quite hard to find great objects, whether sellers just don’t feel the urge or are well enough capitalized that they don’t need to sell them at this moment in time. So I think we’ve actually had a bit of a less fluid market, which seems to be turning.
Installation view of “Enchanted Reverie: Klee and Calder” at Di Donna Galleries, New York.
Courtesy Di Donna Galleries, New York. Photo: Tom Powel. © 2026 Calder Foundation,
New York / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York.
How does data actually circulate within a private sales network?
It’s always been reasonably proprietary. Everyone has their own set of data. Some clearly is public and everyone gets to see, and other information is market intelligence—sometimes true and sometimes false—that builds a mosaic. We’re always trying to gather as many data points as possible to create a broader picture.
And I don’t think the split between private and public data is dramatically different than it has been historically. To the contrary, there’s probably more public data accessible to more people than there has ever been.
Each seller has a different appetite for risk and publicity. At certain points in the cycle, being public is helpful in achieving the best price outcome. At other moments, when markets are choppy, there’s less appetite for publicity. As the cycle shifts, so does that appetite.
Want more insight? Join Katya Kazakina and Naomi Rea for a live conversation on April 8 at 1 p.m. ET, where they’ll unpack key Intelligence Report findings and answer audience questions.
Register in advance—space is limited—and attendees will receive 50% off a PRO subscription, or a complimentary Artist Analytics report for current members.