🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who observe trends 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 focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped 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 the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of taken items 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 devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. 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 dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves 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 structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical 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 full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic building had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”