🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth 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 venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces 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 Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies 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 remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering 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 stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am 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. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present the nation simply has no money.”