🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take 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 these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife 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, performed by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to collect 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 media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “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 proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult 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 schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours 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 security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”