🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” 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 robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson 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 legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and observing that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”