🔗 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 Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates 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 Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode 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 items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling 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 moving it among difficult criminal actors,” 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 highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world 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 children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

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

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be hard 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 occurred between morning hours local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently France simply has no resources.”