🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped 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 Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle 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 a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping 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 valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the historic building had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and currently France simply has no resources.”