🔗 Share this article

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Experts who observe patterns in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or metals than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the current economic climate in many developed nations.

“Since Covid, governments across the world have cut back on police and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers left by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the historical theft of the famous painting from the same museum, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before handling such striking pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of embarrassment. Now, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage 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 conceive of a scheme to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to collect a reward.”

For similar reasons, 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 global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your children.”

Modifying taken items by melting down or re-cutting does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Crucially, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to take the items to locations with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released next month criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating systems and noting that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to protect,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include several layers to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new devices that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in France about the 232-year-old building had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on protection.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no resources.”