🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking 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 observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their protection in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside 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 the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

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. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours 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 security change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently the nation simply has no money.”