🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown 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 famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that 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.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher 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 individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, 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 re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said 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 published soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing 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 structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly 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 breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”