🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark 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,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the pieces. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to collect a ransom.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said 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 soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

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

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on security.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently the nation simply has no resources.”