🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut 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 theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”