🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum 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 most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“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 find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly 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 proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, 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 scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. 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 family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”