🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable 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 study patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance 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 an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, 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 developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally 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 recent theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode 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 quickly 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 immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery 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 newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install 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 deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present the nation simply has no money.”