🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in global cultural theft, 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 material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into 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 eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem 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, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object 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 stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson 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 confirming proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant 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 reported on, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present the nation simply has no money.”