🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take 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 more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping 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 conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world 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 stolen works by dismantling 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 lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment 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 focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and currently the nation simply has no money.”