🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent 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 precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure featuring 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 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as a city, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”