🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, 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 lesser importance to the criminals.

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

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft 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 series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

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

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a larger 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 robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”