On Sunday night, March 22, four masked men forced open the front door to the Magnani-Rocca Foundation, a private art collection nestled in the fields of northern Italy. In less than three minutes, the thieves climbed the stairs, turned left, and entered the French Room, where they grabbed three paintings off the wall: “Les Poissons” (1917) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir; “Still Life with Cherries”(1890) by Paul Cézanne; and “Odalisque on the Terrace” (1922) by Henri Matisse.
They intended to keep going — authorities later found another Renoir taken off the wall — but the alarm sounded, forcing the thieves to abandon their work and flee by climbing over a fence. They remain at large.
The name of the game these days is more smash-and-grab than “Thomas Crown Affair.”
You might be wondering: another one?
You bet, and it’s not just you — a lot of people seem to agree that art heists are becoming more common.
ARTNews reported that 2025 was “seemingly a record year for art theft.” The Magnani-Rocca robbery is the latest in a string of thefts targeting museums over the past year or so, what the Economic Times described as “part of a broader pattern … [of] high-profile museum burglaries.” The most famous is the Louvre robbery from last October, when a group of individuals hacked their way into the museum in broad daylight and made off with jewelry valued at roughly $100 million.
Lesser-known recent heists from the past year include: the Drents Museum (golden Romanian artifacts — three-quarters of which were returned this Thursday); the Adrien Dubouché National Museum (Chinese porcelain works); the French National Museum of Natural History (gold nuggets); the Bristol Museum (over 600 assorted objects); the Denis Diderot museum (nearly 2,000 gold and silver coins); the Oakland Museum (over 1,000 assorted objects); the National Museum of Damascus (Roman-era statues); and the Biblioteca Mário de Andrade (Matisse engravings).
So why are art heists becoming more common? Three factors might explain the recent uptick.
First, museums generally have poor security. Most are forced to operate on shoestring budgets and what little funding they receive is usually funneled towards sexier projects — you’d be hard-pressed to find a donor excited by the prospect of sponsoring a CCTV system. Then there’s the architecture. Many museums are housed in historic buildings originally designed as stately homes or grand public fora. Leadership is often loathe to retrofit security upgrades because it would undermine the beauty or historical integrity of the building. The combination of inadequate funding and preservationist mindset means museum security systems tend to be relatively outdated (the password to the Louvre’s CCTV network was reportedly “LOUVRE”), and susceptible to quick, coordinated break-ins. Unfortunately, it appears that criminals are taking notice. The name of the game these days is more smash-and-grab than “Thomas Crown Affair.”
Second, as geopolitical uncertainty wreaks havoc on global economic forces, the value of precious metals and gemstones is increasing. Precious metals and gemstones are considered “safe-haven assets,” whose value increases whenever there is macroeconomic volatility. This makes them an especially appealing target for thieves because precious metals can easily be melted down and gemstones dissembled, making them valuable (and largely untraceable) hedges against global markets. The spiking value of precious metals and gemstones appears to have been the motivation behind the Louvre heist, as well as the robberies of the Drents Museum and the French National Museum of Natural History. But that doesn’t explain the Magnani-Rocca heist.
Which brings us to the third factor: the record-setting value of “blue chip” paintings.
But let’s back up. Generally, it’s a very poor idea to steal a painting, especially a famous one. People don’t steal paintings to admire in private collections (well, except one guy); they steal them for their value. But paintings are easily recognizable, which makes stolen ones difficult to sell. The art market’s dedication to heightened provenance standards means any work’s ownership history is highly scrutinized. And no legitimate purchaser would knowingly buy a stolen painting, no matter how valuable. It’s much more likely they’d report the painting to law enforcement. The stolen paintings that do get sold are sold on the black market, and they only fetch around 10% of their open-market value.
Generally, it’s a very poor idea to steal a painting, especially a famous one.
That said, stolen paintings can be valuable in other ways. For example, stolen paintings can be used as collateral in other black market deals, as a bargaining chip with law enforcement, or be ransomed back to the museum for a “finder’s fee.” These methods are however still quite risky, which is perhaps why the paintings taken during the Isabella Stewart Gardiner heist have never been recovered.
We may never know what motivated the Magnani-Rocca robbers. But I suspect part of the answer may lie in an unexpected corner: artificial intelligence. AI is one of the dominant forces of our day, seemingly infiltrating every aspect of life with alarming speed, and the art market is no exception. AI-generated art entered the art market in the late 2010s and has only carved out a larger share for itself since. Last year, for example, Christie’s held its first auction dedicated exclusively to AI-generated art.
But that doesn’t mean AI-generated art is replacing human-generated art. Far from it. In fact, it seems that the flood of AI-generated art is making human-generated art more valuable by comparison. This is not just because AI-generated art is “soulless.” It’s also due to the fact that human-generated art is also considered a safe-haven asset alongside precious metals and gemstones. As AI continues to insert itself into all facets of life, upending industries and labor markets, human-generated art is seen as a hedge against the impending financial disruptions.
This is particularly true for “blue chip” paintings — works of historical significance by famous artists. In 2025, despite the onslaught of AI-generated art and macroeconomic volatility (or, perhaps, because of it), worldwide sales of Impressionist and Modern art increased by nearly 30% to $4.7 billion, with over 120,000 works selling for over $10 million each. Old Masters sales — works by European artists painted between roughly 1300 and 1800 — skyrocketed by over 40% to $700 million, and Postwar and contemporary sales ticked up 2.5% to $4.1 billion.
Which is to say: the Magnani-Rocca Foundation may have been the victim of a perfect storm. Crime is a copycat game, and the recent string of heists has shown museums are vulnerable to smash-and-grab operations. And recent events — particularly the United States’ war with Iran —have further increased global unrest, making art, especially historical paintings by famous artists, uniquely valuable and safe investments. Perhaps this meant, at least to the Magnani-Rocca robbers, that the riskiness of post-theft difficulties was worth it.
Unfortunately, I doubt the Magnani-Rocca heist will be the last. With each new art theft, it’s becoming more and more clear that museum security systems are largely inadequate to protect against smash-and-grab robberies. And with global economic headwinds continuing to swirl in uncertainty, the value of timeless treasures is only going up, making them evermore tempting targets.
Walker Schulte Schneider is a lawyer specializing in art and cultural heritage. He works at WilmerHale in New York City.