🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on police and the culture sector,” 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 – including necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson 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 auction house would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, 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 structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, 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 additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”