🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab 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, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities 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 difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing systems and observing that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

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

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

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime 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 thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”