🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing 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 subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal valuable jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in the past few 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 reason of being public-facing 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 shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin 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, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting 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 close as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or in-built seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the robbers reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had mostly centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”