🔗 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 disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts indicate 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, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

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

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order 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 can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones 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 removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a electric tool.

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

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”