🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing 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 study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, 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 take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems 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 cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, 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 remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves 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 buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult 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 robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present France simply has no money.”