🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” 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 robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic building had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently the nation simply has no resources.”