🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

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

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items 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 find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month pointing out “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently France simply has no money.”