🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said 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 published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, 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 melting down or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors 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 morning hours local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. 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.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”