🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” 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 theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained 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 sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces 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 Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a larger and brighter 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 proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often 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 most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing 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 start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic building had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently the nation simply has no money.”