🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts centered more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of lesser importance to the thieves.

“You may ask why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent factor of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into 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 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent theft of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a multi-million pound valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to remain intact, 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”, said Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has released images of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because modern methods give gems a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “persistent” slow progress in updating systems and observing that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say showing valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” said an art crime professor. “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 are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the day as crowds stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to bypass security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in France about the historic structure had mostly centered on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to protect the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present France lacks sufficient money.”