🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

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 quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions 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 tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series 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 rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade 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, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the historic building had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”