🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “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 stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back 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 horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”