Explosives in Assen, axes in Paris and a multimillion-euro raid at the Louvre: Europol does not see the spectacular museum thefts of recent years as isolated incidents. A new report points to a wider shift in cultural property crime across Europe. Offenders are becoming more violent, more selective in their targets and, increasingly, appear to come from outside the traditional art crime milieu. For museums, this changes the security equation.

The raid on the Drents Museum in the Netherlands was over quickly. In January 2025, offenders blew open an entrance door and escaped with several Dacian gold artefacts, including the roughly 2,500-year-old golden Helmet of Coțofenești.

In Paris, four masked attackers entered the Musée Cognacq-Jay armed with baseball bats and axes and smashed their way into display cases. Then, in October 2025, the Louvre was targeted in another violent raid in which windows and showcases were forced open while security staff and visitors were threatened. Jewellery worth around EUR 88 million was stolen.

For Europol, these cases are part of a pattern.

In its latest spotlight report, “Changing tactics, changing targets: the evolving nature of museum heists”, the European law enforcement agency describes cultural property theft as becoming more direct, more aggressive and increasingly deliberate. Sledgehammers, axes, crowbars and explosives now feature in attacks, while firearms have also appeared in individual cases.

What was once predominantly a crime against collections is therefore becoming a more immediate threat to the people inside museums as well.

Speed is becoming part of the method

The familiar image of the art thief quietly moving through a museum at night is becoming less useful in explaining some of the cases now being investigated across Europe.

Rather than avoiding confrontation at all costs, offenders are increasingly willing to use speed and force.

Europol believes that a number of recent attacks were not spontaneous. Specific objects appear to have been selected in advance. Violence then becomes a practical means of reducing the time between entry and escape: doors, windows and display cases only need to withstand the attackers for a few minutes before the intended objects can be removed.

That distinction matters for museum security.

An institution may have sophisticated intrusion detection, video surveillance and alarm systems. But if offenders are prepared to defeat physical barriers using heavy tools or explosives, the critical factor becomes the time between the first indication of an attack and an effective response.

For security managers, this moves the discussion beyond detection alone. The question is increasingly whether the wider security architecture can react quickly enough once an attack has begun.

Gold is easier to monetise than a masterpiece

Europol is also seeing a shift in what offenders choose to steal.

Gold, gemstones and other high-value, portable objects are proving particularly attractive.

Part of the explanation is straightforward: they are valuable. But their criminal appeal also lies in how easily they can be altered after a theft.

Gold can be melted down. Gemstones can be removed from jewellery and sold separately. By dismantling or transforming an object, criminals can eliminate some of the characteristics that allow investigators, dealers or collectors to recognise stolen cultural property.

That can make a historic piece of jewellery more attractive to an offender than an internationally famous painting. A masterpiece may be worth many millions, but notoriety can make it extremely difficult to sell. Precious metals and stones are far easier to move into other markets.

Europol has also identified growing interest in Chinese cultural objects, including historic porcelain, bronze vessels and artefacts from the Ming and Qing dynasties. Rising market values and international demand appear to be increasing their attraction for criminal networks.

For European museums, this changes the way collections may need to be assessed.

The object with the highest insurance value is not necessarily the object facing the greatest immediate theft risk. Portability, raw material value, market demand and the possibility of rapidly dismantling or reselling an item are becoming increasingly relevant factors.

The offenders themselves are changing

Perhaps the most significant part of Europol’s analysis concerns the people behind the attacks.

The illicit trade in cultural goods has traditionally been associated with specialist actors: thieves, intermediaries and dealers with knowledge of the art and antiquities markets and access to particular collectors or distribution channels.

Such criminals had a reason to avoid unnecessary attention. Physical violence did not necessarily fit the business model.

Some of the more recent museum cases look different.

Europol is seeing individuals with backgrounds in other forms of crime. Groups may be assembled for a particular raid rather than operating as permanent art theft networks. The agency even points to the possibility of offenders being recruited locally through social media and instant-messaging services.

The report refers to a potential “crime-as-a-service” model, although Europol stresses that intelligence gaps remain and that the phenomenon requires further investigation.

If that assessment proves correct, the implications are considerable.

Museums would no longer be dealing only with specialist cultural property networks. Offenders from other areas of organised crime may increasingly see museums as another opportunity where very high-value goods can potentially be obtained quickly.

That could also help explain the rise in force.

Criminals without a traditional background in the art market may have less reason to follow the comparatively discreet methods historically associated with cultural property theft.

Security may have to start well before the display case

A targeted museum attack also raises questions about preparation.

An offender seeking a particular object needs information. Where is it located? How is it protected? Which entrances and exits are available? When are visitor numbers low? How quickly can security personnel intervene?

That means the attack may effectively begin long before the first window is broken.

For European museum operators, the security response increasingly has to combine physical protection, intrusion detection, video surveillance, access control and staff procedures rather than treating them as separate systems.

The decisive point is not simply whether an alarm is generated.

Can unusual behaviour be identified before an attack develops? Can a control room establish what is happening quickly enough? Can physical barriers delay offenders long enough for intervention to take place?

Those questions are particularly difficult for museums because they are not vaults.

Their purpose is to make cultural heritage accessible. Collections are displayed precisely because the public is meant to encounter them at close range. Excessive security can undermine the very function the institution is intended to serve.

Europol’s findings make that balance more difficult.

Where security planning may once have focused primarily on preventing covert removal, museums increasingly have to consider how their premises and display systems would perform against offenders willing to use substantial physical force.

Cultural property crime crosses borders quickly

The European dimension does not end at the museum door.

Once an object has been stolen, it may cross several national borders, move through different intermediaries or be dismantled before entering other markets.

Europol’s European Serious and Organised Crime Centre (ESOCC) supports national investigations with operational analysis, intelligence and coordination. Cross-border cooperation is particularly important where investigators need to connect suspects, objects and trading networks spread across several jurisdictions.

An operation in November 2025 illustrated the challenge. Authorities from several countries acted against a network suspected of trading ancient gold and silver coins and other antiquities. Investigators were able to establish links between suspects in different states and identify additional cultural objects believed to have been trafficked.

For Europe’s museums, that international criminal ecosystem adds another layer of complexity. Prevention may be local, but investigation and recovery are often anything but.

A different risk picture for European museums

Europol’s report does not suggest that every museum theft now follows the same violent pattern, nor that traditional forms of cultural property crime have disappeared.

But the direction of travel is difficult to ignore.

Some offenders are becoming more violent, targets are being selected more deliberately and the boundary between cultural property crime and other forms of organised criminality appears to be becoming more porous.

That changes the assumptions on which museum security has traditionally been built.

The critical scenario is no longer only the thief trying to defeat security without being noticed. Increasingly, museums must also consider what happens when offenders have no intention of avoiding detection and are prepared instead to break through security measures within minutes.

Europol’s latest warning suggests that, for museums across Europe, that scenario can no longer be treated as exceptional.