🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”