🔗 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 disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves 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 Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely 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 end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, 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 leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

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

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves 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 primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”