🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, Britain 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 globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

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

The theft of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals 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 licit market”, 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 pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news 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 acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating systems and observing that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit 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 local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently the nation simply has no money.”