🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who study patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder 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 nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin 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 remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner 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 all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” 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 released next month criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours local time, was common of recent thefts, 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 before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and currently France simply has no money.”