🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing 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 latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” said 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 proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient resources.”