🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, 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 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 hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world 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 bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist 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” delays in updating systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the thieves accessed 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 232-year-old building had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient resources.”