🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

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

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces 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 Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items 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 items were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of well-known works of art 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.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy 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 most solid security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”