Paris Museum Heist Shines Spotlight on Protection Concerns

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe patterns in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the latest in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, 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 criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to steal valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent retail store thefts mean that many stores have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Museums, meanwhile, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built factor of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted 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 – including jewelry pieces made up of eight sapphires and 631 diamonds, the tiara of a historical figure containing nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown 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 Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

More relevant comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the recent robbery of a valuable item from a European museum or even a series of thefts of collector items from American institutions.

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

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as immediately identifiable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

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

In the past, museums were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an accomplice informing authorities to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the theft. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to locations with diamond expertise like a country, India or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to remove the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the institution, with a unauthorized official review expected to be published next month pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But specialists say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a steady stream of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The most solid protective measures for structures should be designed “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to deter attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but old museums may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Detection devices can be hard to install to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window 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 building had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from blazes and water damage. “There is no quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to government support and money, and currently France lacks sufficient money.”