🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums 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 crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items 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 stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies 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.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and at present France simply has no resources.”