🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies 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 items were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

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

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world 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 children.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting 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 risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be 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 old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no money.”