🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said 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 necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. 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 works of art and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical 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 extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic building had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”