🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous 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 conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft 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 are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and currently the nation simply has no resources.”