🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts 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, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable 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. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “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 newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

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

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp 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 robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”