🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

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

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves 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 licit market”, said 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 private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

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

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath 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 considerable risk because modern methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws 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”, said a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. 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 hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am 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 rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”