Paris Museum Heist Puts Focus on Protection Concerns

Breaking into the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for global fame and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who study patterns in global cultural theft, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts centered more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has appeared over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why criminals who want to steal expensive jewellery are breaking into a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and wares no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the current economic climate in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have cut back on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – featuring jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, 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 left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from a European museum or even a spate of thefts of sports memorabilia from American institutions.

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

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

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more widely publicised, the storage and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“If you steal a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the danger of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a ransom.”

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 media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot leave it to your family.”

Altering taken items by dismantling or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with significant danger because contemporary cutting techniques give stones a bigger and brighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or barter the price down for a concealment.

Importantly, however, dismantling or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “I suspect that the robbers will try to take the stolen goods 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 heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in updating equipment and noting that security cameras were lacking in many rooms. But specialists say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with dangers that are not possible 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 get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you can’t fit them with secure windows.”

The most solid security systems for structures should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, noted a security advisor. “There should be multiple levels to deter intruders.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art surveillance systems or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be difficult to fit to stuccoed ceilings. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The schedule of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was typical of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as extra protection.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the conversation in the country about the 232-year-old building had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and less on security.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their mission is mainly to protect the artworks from blazes and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and money, and currently France simply has no resources.”