🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, 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 international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating 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 criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

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

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator 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 global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said 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 criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”