🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

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

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring 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 famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner 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 films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works 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 larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as a city, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems 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 secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, 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. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in France about the historic building had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently France simply has no resources.”