🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

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

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the items 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 licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps 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 reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft 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 media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking 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 much harder to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”