🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts 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, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft 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 are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

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

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and observing that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings 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. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently the nation simply has no money.”