🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums 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 tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 heist 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,” 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 find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Modifying 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 cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows 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 most solid protective measures for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had mostly focused on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and at present the nation simply has no money.”