🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “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 strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade 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, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft 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 end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation 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 institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers 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 France about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient resources.”