🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s 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 historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable 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 buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often 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 can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

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

The museum has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”