🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string 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, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard 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 Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing 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 protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, 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 rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”