🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream 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 allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”