🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few 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 inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“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 handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking 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 secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install 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 local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively 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 circumvent 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 conversation in France about the historic building had mostly focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”