🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

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

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, 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 all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and observing that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently the nation simply has no resources.”