🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves 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.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark 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.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“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 danger of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

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. “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 bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” 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 “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras 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 fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common 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 before the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”