🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety 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 latest in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia 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 find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell 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 published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal 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 risk of an partner telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective 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 newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” 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 pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves 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 security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert 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 crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient resources.”