🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

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

The theft of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia 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, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

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

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates 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 nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing 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 proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors 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 took place between morning hours in Paris, 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 change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”