🔗 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 humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a larger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India 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 institution, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be hard 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 timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and at present France simply has no money.”