🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement 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 horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, 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 risk of an partner telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order 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 are apprehended, you end up in prison. 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 modern methods give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge 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 next month criticising “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible 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 most solid security systems for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts 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 devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old building had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”