🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable 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 Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection 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 in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

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

The theft of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped 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.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant 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 widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable 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 buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to get away, 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”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. 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 hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently France lacks sufficient resources.”