Editor’s Note
This article examines a 2018 security report submitted to the Louvre, which reportedly detailed vulnerabilities in the museum’s Jewelry Gallery. The report’s existence, revealed by *Le Monde*, raises questions about institutional awareness prior to the major theft in October 2025.
On November 25, 2025, Le Monde revealed that a private security audit conducted in 2018 by the jeweler Van Cleef & Arpels had been submitted to the Louvre’s former management. Laurence des Cars, the museum’s director, claimed she was unaware of it before the robbery on October 19.
This report contained “two pages and three diagrams” detailing the weakness of the south balcony of the gallery: a window overlooking the Quai François-Mitterrand, possible access via a service lift, and blind spots in video surveillance. The audit noted that this balcony – and the lack of sufficient video coverage – was one of the “greatest points of vulnerability” in the museum.
“Incredible, but true” one might say! After the theft of the Crown Jewels in October 2025, the document resurfaced via Le Monde. The current Louvre management states it only became aware of it after the robbery, suggesting the audit was not transferred during the leadership change.
Since the document specified the exact vulnerabilities – balcony, service lift, blind spots – many media outlets now describe a scenario worthy of a Maurice Leblanc novel, with its revelation seven years later, as if it had been “swept under the rug”! This is especially true as the robbery’s modus operandi matches the audit’s diagrams word for word. The institution – supposed to be the most secure in the world – is caught up in the “heist of the century,” with commentary on inertia, negligence, and possible complicity.
Le Monde’s investigation notes that this document had still not been communicated to the Paris prosecutor’s office or the two specialized investigating judges leading the inquiry. The Louvre told the newspaper it only “discovered” the report after the theft, during an analysis of documents on the Galerie d’Apollon, and then transmitted it to the General Inspectorate of Cultural Affairs (IGAC) – the administration, not the judge.
Under French law, there are legal concepts and offenses that, in similar circumstances (non-disclosure of an essential document, concealment, obstruction of justice, etc.), can go beyond simple “negligence” and constitute a criminal offense.
Article 434-4 of the Penal Code – suppression, concealment, or alteration of evidence – punishes the act of “destroying, removing, concealing, or altering a public or private document… likely to facilitate the discovery of a crime or offense.” If a person aware of an offense (or risk thereof) withholds a document useful to the investigation – be it an audit report, a plan, or a vulnerability diagram – without submitting it to the judicial file, this could, in theory, fall under Article 434-4, provided there is intent to “obstruct the manifestation of the truth.”
For a public institution or a person entrusted with a public service mission (like museum management), the deliberate concealment of essential documents can constitute a criminal fault, even an offense. The offense can target the individual (leader, responsible person) or, in some cases, the legal entity (the institution).
Neither Le Monde nor other media specify the exact date (day/month) of the report’s “rediscovery.” It is only known to have occurred after October 19, 2025, and before the article’s publication on November 25.
It is unclear who exactly found the audit: a member of management, an archives service, an internal agent, an external expert… it is not specified. There is no public record (minutes, official statement, judicial act) confirming the report was entered into the judicial file, casting doubt on its “official entry” into the investigation. The known narrative currently depends on press revelations. It is also unknown if an “internal alert” had been issued before 2025 regarding this document. The report seemed to be “filed” among other archives, with no visible follow-up. Van Cleef & Arpels, however, confirmed the audit’s authenticity, refusing to provide further details.
This perhaps explains the Louvre management’s lack of urgency in transmitting this famous audit to the justice system and naturally encourages multiple hypotheses.
The report was filed in the institution’s archives in 2018–2021 (or during the transition between managements), but without any permanent alert being established. Upon the arrival of the new management, no one checked these complete archives: the document remained “dormant.” This type of “dormancy”…