🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering 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 hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among 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 commissioned. “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 buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

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

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and before 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 efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present the nation simply has no money.”