🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts 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 centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson 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 paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items 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 keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

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 a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “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 secure windows.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts 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 provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France simply has no resources.”