🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who observe 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 quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with armed guards 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 partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

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

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 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,” explained Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. 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 bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”