🔗 Share this article

Entering 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 humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” 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 children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical 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 before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently the nation simply has no money.”