🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists 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 focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves 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 better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts 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 artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, 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 security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade 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 safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present France simply has no money.”