🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on police 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 theft of the items – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, 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 proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. 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 recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient resources.”