🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted 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 theft of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal 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, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies 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 conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist 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 “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

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

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old building had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”