🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world 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 family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”