🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s 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 historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering 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 better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe 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 robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“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, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

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

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering taken items 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 gems a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

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

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic building had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”