🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on humble scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with armed guards on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look more exposed, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on police and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, performed by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of jewellery from a German institution worth over €113m, the theft of a multi-million pound valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of robberies of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the items were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable 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 published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums 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 selling of taken items is risky business for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

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

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to take the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as close as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said 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 preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid protective measures for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that raise alarm about a smashed window in real time, but historic institutions may be reluctant to alter their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies 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 actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In Paris, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the conversation in France about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on visitor management in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mostly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and funding, and at present France lacks sufficient resources.”