🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves 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 aggressive retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

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

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable 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 pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, 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 taken items by dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping removes the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “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 are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

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

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”