🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe 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 monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating 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 criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft 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 get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style 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 theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking 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.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often 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 most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in France about the historic building had primarily centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently France simply has no resources.”