🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on humble 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 robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said 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 items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft 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 get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic building had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”