🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“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 at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of taken items is risky business 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 scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator 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 global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value 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 take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade 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. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”