🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: 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 more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent 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 rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

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

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

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 global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “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 are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. 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 gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”