🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend 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 criminals.

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

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

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

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of 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 accomplice telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present France simply has no money.”