🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows 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 eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” 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 are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions 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 disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, 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 opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. 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 the country about the historic building had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”