🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows 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 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off 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 recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”