🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “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 media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic building had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present France simply has no resources.”