🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent 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 valuable gems 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 venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

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

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern 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 struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic structure had primarily centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”