Paris Museum Robbery Puts Spotlight on Protection Issues

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent movie adaptations.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a series of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the historical importance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, 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 steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is better protected.”

A series of violent retail store thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly because of the in-built reason of being accessible institutions in older structures, and also the current economic climate in many developed nations.

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

The robbery of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the Italian handyman the thief.

More relevant comparisons may be the recent burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, the taking of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the same year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, specialists say, the criminals would struggle to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems 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 pieces. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the keeping and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a scheme to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been commissioned. “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 buy this, if you get caught, you go to jail. You can't display it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your children.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give gems a larger and brighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, dismantling or re-cutting removes the evidence of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to cut out the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon pointing out “significant” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating systems and observing that surveillance were lacking in many rooms. But security experts say showing precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have large accessible windows that makes it easy for criminals to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The best protective measures for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, noted Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between morning hours local time, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had mostly focused on visitor management in the past decade, and less on protection.

The museum has an in-house brigade of about fifty permanent emergency personnel, but their mission is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and flooding. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no money.”