🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor 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 cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft 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 children.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter 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 bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” 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 released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws 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 Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present the nation simply has no money.”