🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in recent 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 in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted 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 theft of the items – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, 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 full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present France simply has no resources.”