Stolen gold Romanian art pieces to be displayed next week as thieves ask for mercy

The Romanian cultural treasures stolen from the Drents Museum in Assen in early 2025 are set to return to public view in Romania. The Ministry of Culture has announced that the Coțofenești golden helmet and two Dacian bracelets will be unveiled on Tuesday at the National History Museum in Bucharest. The three suspects on trial asked the District Court for Noord-Nederland for leniency during closing statements in Assen on Thursday.

The ministry described the occasion as a moment of “great joy,” stressing the significant cultural importance of the ancient artifacts for Romania. Following a formal ceremony, the helmet and bracelets will also be made available for public viewing.

During proceedings in Assen, lawyer Nico Meijering called for the return of the third golden bracelet still missing from the art heist. “It’s good that the artworks have been recovered,” he said, “but the picture would only be complete if the third bracelet is also returned.”

Meijering acts as counsel for suspect Jan B.,21, in the art theft case. B. and co-defendant Douglas Chesley W. reached agreements with prosecutors that resulted in the recovery of the Coțofenești helmet and two gold bracelets, in exchange for a one-third reduction in their sentences.

The Public Prosecution Service (OM) says it has established that B. and W. are unable to return the third bracelet, and it remains unclear who could. In the final part of his plea for B., Meijering made a public appeal and offered legal assistance to anyone able to return the missing museum piece.

Meijering also argued that B.’s sentence should be reduced by a few months. He said police and prosecutors used undercover officers against his client, who were allegedly so forceful in conversations that they effectively amounted to interrogations, something he argues is not permitted for undercover agents.

The case against alleged art thief Bernhard Z. ,35, is far less conclusive than prosecutors claim, according to his lawyers, who argued in court on Thursday that he should be acquitted.

Z. admits to arranging a car and license plates but says he was not among the three men who entered the Drents Museum on the night of January 24–25 last year, when Dacian treasures including a golden helmet and three bracelets were stolen.

His lawyers argue that his role in preparation does not amount to co-perpetration. They also say forensic examinations found no trace of Z. inside the museum, and that he does not appear on security footage showing three perpetrators: one shorter man and two of average build, while Z. has a more imposing physique. “The prosecution is brushing that aside far too easily,” they said.

The defense further argues that prosecutors are drawing overly firm conclusions from DNA traces found on discarded clothing and a sports bag. While Z. acknowledges buying the bag, he says he did not know it would be used in the Assen art heist. His lawyers suggest DNA on a recovered jacket may have been transferred indirectly via the bag in which it was discarded.

They also argue the case file contains “serious indications” that others beyond the three defendants may have been involved. “Alternative scenarios have barely been explored,” they said, pointing to a Romanian man seen inside the museum after hours with a large bag days before the theft, who later gave what they described as an implausible explanation. Although he was identified as a suspect, no further action followed.

Z. did not enter into any agreements with prosecutors, who on Tuesday sought a 5.5-year prison sentence against him.

Lawyers for W. asked the court in Assen to approve procedural agreements reached with prosecutors on Thursday. W. and Jan B. agreed to the deal in exchange for returning the stolen artworks and receiving reduced sentences.

On Tuesday, prosecutors recommended 44-month prison sentences for the two suspects who reached a deal. Their lawyer said the defense hopes the court will approve the agreements so the case can be concluded.

In their closing arguments, W.’s lawyers also criticised the conditions of his detention, saying he spent three months in a cell with restricted isolation. After a complaint procedure, he was moved and awarded compensation by the complaints committee. “The prison system should be deeply ashamed,” they said.

W.’s lawyer also criticised police conduct at the Alkmaar police station during the first interrogation. He said officers told him in no uncertain terms that W. must reveal the location of the stolen art, and suggested he would otherwise be considered partly responsible. “I found that highly unpleasant,” he said. “I am not a suspect, just the lawyer.”

The court is expected to issue its ruling on June 5.