Entering the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, grabbing 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.
Experts who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a series of quick-hit thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.
“You may ask why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is better protected.”
A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with armed guards on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.
“After the pandemic, governments across the world have cut back on police and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”
The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed 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 the thief.
Better points of reference may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.
“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”
If the artefacts were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the legal marketplace”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.
“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”
In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.
“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”
For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been ordered. “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 acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”
Modifying taken items by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and brighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.
Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.
The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” delays in updating systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.
“Older structures are much harder to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves 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 buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to repel intruders.”
Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.
The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”
Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.
An author said the conversation in the country about the historic building had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.
The museum has an in-house team of about 50 full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a 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 money.”
