🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending 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 robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate 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 remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade 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, 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 legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft 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 get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves 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 security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”