🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who study patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating 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 criminals.

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

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“Since Covid, authorities across the world have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” 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 proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day 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 thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently the nation simply has no money.”