🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

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 string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts 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 items were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” 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 friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, 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 conceptualised “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices 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 occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical 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 prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France simply has no money.”