🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted 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 robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale 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 conceal it, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” 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 cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month criticising “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes 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. “It should include multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new methods 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 window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the historic building had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently France simply has no resources.”