🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, 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 telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news 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.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is 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 find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published next month criticising “considerable” and “persistent” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old structure 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 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”