🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: 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 protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our institutions 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 Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft 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 same year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

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

In the past, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “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 acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating systems and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best protective measures for structures should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to repel 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 hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, 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.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”