🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present France simply has no money.”