🔗 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 international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who observe trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, 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,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement 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 – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia 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 stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

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

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published next month criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino 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 on-site brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”