🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years 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 entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel 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 in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” 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 items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “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 bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, 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 designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no money.”