🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores 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 inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have cut back on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely 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 can't display 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 gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert 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 state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”