🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies 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 items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

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

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. 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 friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves 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 security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent 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 discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently France simply has no money.”