🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“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 these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“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 struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade 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 cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying 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 gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”