🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on police 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 horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “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 get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”