🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing 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.

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 series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos 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 previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk 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 commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals 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 structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, 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 conversation in France about the historic building had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”