🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal 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 Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate 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 artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” 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 are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”