🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, 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 Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“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, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” 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 go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security rotate 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 notify more quickly and efficiently, 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 mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”