🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world 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 robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the thieves 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 Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals 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, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “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 acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to get away, 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 structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

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

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently France simply has no resources.”