🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate 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 wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists 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”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down 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 gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently the nation simply has no money.”