🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

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

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

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

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”