🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

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

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts 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 struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”