🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

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

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing 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 best security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”