🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable 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 published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, 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 cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking 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 passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely 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 buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested 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 soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies 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 extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”