🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have cut back on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant 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 keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft 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 media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions 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 specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing 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 proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. 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 occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common 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 rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic building had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”