🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

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 string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted 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 robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” said 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 soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible 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 proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic building had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”