🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris 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 Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“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,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” 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 cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said 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 can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers accessed 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 structure had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”