🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates 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 eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by a royal that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that 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.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos 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 previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as art thefts 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 keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering taken items by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds walk 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 robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify 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 vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in France about the historic building had mostly focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”