🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending 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 jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson 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 items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. 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 schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present France simply has no resources.”