🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few 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 accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“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, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

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

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

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

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the historic building had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently France simply has no money.”