Louvre Heist Shines Spotlight on Security Concerns

Breaking into the world’s most-visited museum in the middle of the day, taking eight pieces of priceless historical gems and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe trends in global cultural theft, however, see Sunday morning’s robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, Britain and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their security in the past few years, with armed guards on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and partly 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. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it shows how at risk our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The theft of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once owned by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m valuable object from Blenheim Palace the same year, the 2017 heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode 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 find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels 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 individual buyer or an auction house would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, museums were often reluctant to announce publicly about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and selling of stolen art 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 passing it around difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery 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 newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a larger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the items to locations with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as close as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be designed “as a stronghold”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the day 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 recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on crowd control in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and funding, and at present France simply has no resources.”