🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit 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 ten years in Germany, Britain 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 breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on police 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 theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“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, experts say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan 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 telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “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 buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, 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 contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows 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 protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”