🔗 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 simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last ten years in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves 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 violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items 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, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous 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, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order 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 go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that allows 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 buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical 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 actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the historic structure had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present France simply has no resources.”