🔗 Share this article

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

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent 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 arts funding,” 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 theft of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible 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 Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, 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 designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic building had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”