🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. 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 friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors 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 modern robberies, 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 crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the historic building had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from blazes 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 currently the nation simply has no resources.”