🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business 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, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world 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 acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions 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 updating systems and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. 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 devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”