🔗 Share this article

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

Experts who observe trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said 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 released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

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

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 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. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”