🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious 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 heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built factor of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have cut back on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves left by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant points of reference may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would struggle to find a buyer. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, said Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork establishing legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to devise a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” noted Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping removes the proof of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as close as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, 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 buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which occurred between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the security of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”