🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: 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 emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared 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 recent theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them 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 sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities 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 all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”