🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists 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 smash-and-grab 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 Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

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

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement 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 crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale 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 scheme to conceal it, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released next month criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and noting that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy 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 protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”