🔗 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 Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into 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 series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft 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 robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “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 bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install 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 robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards change their shifts and prior to 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 efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”