🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

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

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade 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, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable 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 buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install 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 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”