🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe 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 centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back 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 difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing systems and observing that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “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 can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter 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 walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently France lacks sufficient resources.”