🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell 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, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to get away, 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 structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason 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 crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old building had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”