🔗 Share this article

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

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the worker the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said 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 find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely 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 media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

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

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical 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 full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”