🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

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

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the items to places with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing 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 proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”