🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, 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, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

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

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am 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. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily centered on crowd control in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently France simply has no money.”