🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the material value of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, 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, authorities across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into 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 necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as quickly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems 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 private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and sale of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, 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 risk of an accomplice telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a bigger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to bring the items to locations with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist 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 criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly centered on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and currently the nation simply has no resources.”