🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged 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 thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said 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 items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing 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 naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin 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 stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “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 go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard 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 occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason 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 actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks 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 the nation lacks sufficient money.”