🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft 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 large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

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

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery 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 media. 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 children.”

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

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had mostly focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”