🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: 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 protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted 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 – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts 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 criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business 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 difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a larger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic building had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient resources.”