🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, 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 entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing 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,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. 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 family.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

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

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that allows 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 protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

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 institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”