🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern 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 find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective 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 global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves 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 conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, 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 actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”