🔗 Share this article

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent 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 older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the recent burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

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

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the pieces. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, 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 accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” 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 go to jail. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or re-cutting does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to places with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly centered on crowd control in recent years, and less on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present France simply has no money.”