🔗 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, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent 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 cut back on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, 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 roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable 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, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe 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 investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”