🔗 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 disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet 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 thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” 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 friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy 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 best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”