🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

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

The theft of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer 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 announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “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 acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off 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 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. Frequently when security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic building had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”