🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement 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 difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art 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 scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely 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 are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts 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 devices that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”