🔗 Share this article

Entering 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 global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates 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 precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking 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 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 artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of taken items is dangerous 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 keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner telling the police to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a bigger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows 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 best protective measures for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. 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 took place 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 security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors 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 robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane 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 protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently the nation simply has no resources.”