🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on humble 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 Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

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

A series of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive 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 historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern 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 find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

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

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Commissioned theft 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.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give stones a larger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present France simply has no money.”