🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who study trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of quick-hit 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 Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted 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 objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective 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 all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing 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 best security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”