Louvre Robbery Puts Spotlight on Protection Concerns

Breaking into the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a string of quick-hit thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has emerged over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many stores have strengthened their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look vulnerable, partly 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, authorities across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how at risk our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of Empress Eugénie featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has inevitably been compared with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 heist of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies 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 artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the thieves would find it hard to find a buyer. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable 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 cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming proper ownership before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of stolen art is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an partner telling the police to collect 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 Hollywood movies,” 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 go to jail. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by melting down or reshaping does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a bigger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like Israel, another nation or even as nearby as a city, and find someone to remove the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already raised questions about security measures at the museum, with a leaked official review expected to be published soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say showing valuable objects in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Older structures are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to escape, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The most solid security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Contemporary structures are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that raise alarm about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to install to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as hordes of visitors stomp through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to bypass protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on visitor management in recent years, and less on security.

The institution has an in-house brigade of about 50 permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on government support and money, and currently the nation simply has no resources.”