🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, 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 licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft 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 buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible 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 security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”