🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems 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 criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies 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 items were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

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

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. 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.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves 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 conversation in France about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”