🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged 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 thieves 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 Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping 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 plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy 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 buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped 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 exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic building had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”