🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions 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 tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to sell 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 would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft 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 end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

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

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “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 most solid security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”