The Public Prosecution Service (OM) in the Northern Netherlands has sought prison sentences of up to 5,5 years for the three suspects in the art theft at the Drents Museum in Assen. The prosecutors sought the maximum sentence for a 35-year-old man from Heerhugowaard. For two of his fellow townspeople, two men aged 21 and 37, the Public Prosecution Service demanded prison sentences of 44 months. Plea agreements have been reached with the latter two suspects.
As a result of these agreements, three of the four stolen Romanian gold artefacts have been returned: the Cotofenești helmet and two of the three stolen Dacian bracelets.
Only the suspects
The three men are suspected of a violent art heist in Assen on 25 January 2025. A heist with major international, social and cultural-historical implications. During the heist, the premises were broken into using, among other things, a heavy firework bomb.
The public prosecutors are of the opinion that only the three suspects are responsible for the art heist. “Naturally, other scenarios were investigated and ruled out. This also applies to scenarios reported in the media, such as the involvement of motorcycle gangs or an external client. However, no evidence or concrete indications of this have been found.”
Conclusive evidence
The Public Prosecution Service’s reasoning as to why the defendants planned and carried out the art theft was explained in detail in court. According to the prosecutors, this is evident from various preparatory acts. “A reconnaissance mission, the theft of a getaway car and number plates, the hiring of accommodation before and after the offence, the purchase of disposable mobile phones, tools, a bag and clothing, and the hiring of a second getaway car.”
According to the prosecutors, there is also sufficient evidence that the three suspects carried out the robbery themselves. “This is evident from CCTV footage and a comprehensive forensic profile comprising DNA traces, glass fragments and even a piece of gold. Their presence in the museum is also beyond doubt, as evidenced by the statements made by the youngest suspect to undercover officers and by the 35-year-old suspect (ed.) in a recorded video file.”
Undercover operation
Following the art theft, a large-scale criminal investigation was launched with two main objectives: to recover the stolen artworks and to track down and prosecute the suspected perpetrators. This involved close cooperation with Romanian authorities within a Joint Investigation Team.
Partly in view of the significant social impact, this investigation made use of extensive investigative reporting, an urgent security interview and an undercover operation involving the youngest suspect. The public prosecutors are of the opinion that the use of these special investigative measures was lawful. “For instance, the undercover operation did not involve any unlawful deception, threats or pressure. (…) The findings arising from the undercover operation can therefore be used as evidence.”
Police appeals
The photographs of the two oldest suspects were shown in this investigation, with their full names, on programmes including the TV show ‘Opsporing Verzocht’. This was despite the fact that they had already been arrested and were in custody. This decision was not taken lightly. The Public Prosecution Service carefully weighed up the matter. In doing so, the following questions were addressed: whether showing the suspects complied with the rules, whether this measure was proportionate, and whether no other means could have been employed.
The Public Prosecution Service is of the opinion that the seriousness and impact of the criminal offences committed by the suspects are proportionate to the publication of their photographs. Furthermore, in their view, no other means were available at that time. After all, one of the two main objectives of the investigation was the rapid recovery of the art treasures. As the suspects were unwilling to reveal the whereabouts of the art treasures, the Public Prosecution Service felt compelled to take this decision.
Plea agreements
As the art treasures had not yet been found, the Public Prosecution Service took the initiative in October 2025 to explore the possibility of reaching plea agreements with the defence. “Exploring this was a long, intensive and complex process. A path that the Public Prosecution Service has followed together with the defence. This has led to plea agreements with two of the three defendants.”
The key condition of the plea agreements is that the art treasures had to be returned prior to the substantive hearing of the case. The fact that not all the art treasures have been returned yet and agreements have nevertheless been reached is due to the public prosecutors’ conviction that it was not within the power of these two defendants to return the third bracelet. “This does not, however, mean that the search for it has ended. It continues.”
Sentencing recommendation
The Public Prosecution Service considers a prison sentence of six years to be appropriate and necessary for all the defendants. Due to the fact that the footage was shown and the names of two of the three defendants were disclosed at an earlier stage, the Public Prosecution Service is of the opinion that, although lawful, the privacy of the defendants shown has been infringed. “The Public Prosecution Service understands that the aforementioned action, which is of an exceptional and extraordinary nature, constitutes a significant infringement of privacy.”
This means that a prison sentence of 66 months is considered appropriate and necessary for the suspects shown. The youngest suspect was not shown by name whilst in custody. However, the age of this suspect and his clean criminal record mean that the Public Prosecution Service would also have demanded a prison sentence of 66 months for him.
Due to the plea agreements reached with two of the three suspects, these two men will receive a one-third reduction on the sentence demanded. This means that the Public Prosecution Service is demanding a prison sentence of 44 months for them. For the suspect with whom no agreements have been reached, the sentence demanded remains at 66 months.
Appeal and compensation
Given that a large proportion of the art treasures has been returned and that, in the case of at least two of the three defendants, it is beyond their control to return the third bracelet, the Public Prosecution Service sees no reason in the criminal proceedings to confiscate funds from the defendants. In addition, the Drents Museum has agreed not to file a claim for damages. Nor will an appeal be lodged by the parties involved in the plea agreement, provided the court does not deviate by more than three months from the agreed sentence.
Where were the art treasures?
The most frequently asked questions to the Public Prosecution Service are how the art treasures were returned and where they had been all this time. As far as the Public Prosecution Service is concerned, those questions will remain unanswered. On the one hand, because the Public Prosecution Service does not know where the art treasures have been all this time. “On the other hand, due to the confidentiality of the discussions and negotiations that took place, we cannot elaborate on this,” say the public prosecutors at the court in Assen. “We are not going to reveal who handed over which part of the art treasures and where that took place. Integrity is paramount for the Public Prosecution Service, and therefore we will not breach confidentiality and secrecy."