🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often 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 “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic building had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”