🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

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

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts 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 provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”