🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security 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 provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic building had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”