🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable 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 cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often 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 best security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in France about the historic structure had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”