Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.
Specialists who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The venue, they suggest, 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 Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”
A spate of aggressive jewellery shop thefts mean that many stores have beefed up their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.
“Since Covid, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”
The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.
Better comparisons 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 series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.
“It's a clear trend here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”
If the artefacts were to stay whole, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.
“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable 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 widely publicised, the storage and sale of stolen art is risky business for any lawbreaker.
“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger 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 Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”
Modifying stolen works by melting down or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and brighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.
Crucially, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.
The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.
“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”
The most solid security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted Peter Stürmann. “It should include several layers to deter attackers.”
Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install 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 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 security change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”
Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more rapidly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. 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 discussion in France about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on crowd control in recent years, and less on protection.
The institution has an in-house team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”
