🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums 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 hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the worker the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia 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 items were to remain intact, experts 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”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact 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. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down 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, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards rotate and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”