🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution 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, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk 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 tiara of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft 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 newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down 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, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often 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 secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”