🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing 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 been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before 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 quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”