🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe 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 monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous 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 spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal 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, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly 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 political will and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”