🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns 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 material value of valuable gems or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, the UK and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

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

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on police 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 robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary 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 that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to trade something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous works of art and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by passing it around difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner telling the police to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard 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 schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new devices that can notify 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 upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old building had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and at present France simply has no money.”