Speculation about the motives behind the Parisian jewel theft points in all directions

Initially, seven minutes were mentioned. In fact, the thieves only needed four minutes to steal eight of the French crown jewels from the Louvre in Paris. This indicates a high level of professionalism. However, the burglars also made some serious mistakes. They lost the most important piece, Empress Eugénie's crown, in the middle of the street while fleeing.

The gold jewel is set with 1,354 diamonds and 56 emeralds. It was recovered damaged. The perpetrators are also said to have left behind a glove, which could now be tested for DNA traces.

Meanwhile, speculation is running wild about the background to last Sunday's brazen theft, which occurred in broad daylight and is likely to go down in history as the jewel robbery of the century. There's talk of a contract theft, possibly involving a lone jewel fetishist who wants to claim the unique pieces as his own trophies and boast about them to insiders.

There are also fears that the jewels were stolen because of their purely material value, which is likely immense. The worst case scenario: they would be "gutted," as the trade jargon calls it. The jewelry creations would then be destroyed, the gemstones removed from their settings and recut, and the precious metal melted down to be silver-plated for sale on the market.

There's even speculation about political motives. Is the Kremlin behind this, with the aim of humiliating and destabilizing France? The trail of the thieves could indeed lead abroad. In any case, the thieves were no amateurs. Perhaps they had terrorist training. Perhaps they were the operatives of a powerful criminal organization.

A drug lord was reportedly arrested in France recently. Could the spectacular stolen goods be used to force his release? However, if the order actually came from abroad, the glove found will be of little use. His DNA traces will then be almost impossible to verify in the French database.

Art napping is another suspicion. This primarily involves stealing famous and highly insured works of art in order to extort a ransom. This would be the best-case scenario for the jewels from the Louvre. Then these pieces, which are also of exceptional historical significance, would not be destroyed.

Art napping may have been the intention behind the famous Bührle art theft in Zurich in 2008. In any case, the robbers were paid a ransom of 1.4 million euros for the four stolen works, valued at 180 million francs, before they could be arrested. Stolen paintings by Cézanne or Degas are impossible to monetize on the market. When it comes to art theft, the old adage applies: stealing is easier than selling.

The situation is different with jewels and gold objects. Which is why, in the Louvre case, there are now fears for the pieces. The Dresden jewel theft of 2019 is still well remembered. At that time, historic jewelry items containing 4,300 diamonds with an insured value of over 100 million euros were the subject of a sensational heist. The jewels were stolen from the Green Vault of the Royal Palace. There were fears that they would be dismantled and thus lost forever.

However, almost all of the jewelry from the time of Augustus the Strong was recovered. At that time, the Remmo clan, a large family of Arab descent in Germany, was responsible for the theft. This criminal organization is also responsible for the theft of a 100-kilogram gold coin from the Bode Museum, which remained missing. In the Dresden case, all suspects from the clan were caught. In a deal with the judiciary, they returned most of the irreplaceable pieces.

The theft of the French Crown Jewels also raises the question, once again, of how well museums can protect themselves against theft. The Louvre's serious failures in securing its treasures may have been one of the reasons why the theft occurred in the first place.

In the case of the spectacular theft of Romania's national treasure, the Cotofenesti Gold Helmet, earlier this year, the cultural-historical Drents Museum in Assen, Netherlands, where the loaned object was exhibited, was also inadequately protected. The thieves were likely after its material value – the approximately 2,500-year-old helmet from the National History Museum in Bucharest is made of pure gold and weighs around one kilogram. They had an easy time of it: they used explosives to gain access to the museum.

Security guards were lacking, and electronic security systems and video surveillance were ineffective. Public museums can hardly afford armed security personnel, as large jewelry stores have long employed. Absolute security for museums will never be possible as long as the goal is to exhibit originals and not mere copies.