Louvre Heist Shines Spotlight on Security Concerns

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in broad daylight, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and vanishing into the city traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe patterns 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 centered more on the monetary worth of valuable gems or materials than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they suggest, 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 Cartier store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a Cartier store is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, meanwhile, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent reason of being public-facing institutions in older structures, and partly the financial situation in many western countries.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” said Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the items – including necklaces made up of precious stones and hundreds of gems, the tiara of Empress Eugénie featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by a royal that the robbers dropped by the roadside on their way out – has naturally been compared with the historical theft of the Mona Lisa from the same museum, carried out by the worker the thief.

Better comparisons may be the recent theft of valuables from a German institution worth over millions, the theft of a £4.75m valuable object from a UK landmark the same year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” said Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as quickly as possible.”

If the items were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the licit market”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“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 establishing proper ownership before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the past, institutions were often hesitant to announce publicly about the loss of well-known works of art and would remain quiet out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the storage and selling of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“If you steal a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to keep it in hiding, maybe by moving it among dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the risk of an accomplice informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was vanishingly unlikely that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “Nobody would touch this. It's global news and in all the newspapers. If you acquire these, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or reshaping does lower the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary cutting techniques give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a concealment.

Crucially, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the evidence of the crime. “I suspect that the Louvre thieves will try to take the items to places with diamond expertise like Israel, India or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to cut out the gems,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be published soon criticising “significant” and “ongoing” delays in modernizing systems and noting that surveillance were missing in multiple areas. But specialists say showing precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with dangers that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” said Erin Thompson. “Many of them have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for criminals to get away, 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 conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but historic institutions may be reluctant to uglify their appearance. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “There’s a good reason why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. Frequently when security change their shifts and prior to the museum is full of visitors who actually act as extra protection.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more rapidly and effectively, but it has also given thieves new methods with which to circumvent security measures. In Paris, the thieves accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a mobile equipment and cut through a glass pane with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the conversation in the country about the historic structure had primarily centered on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The institution has an in-house team of about 50 full-time emergency personnel, but their mission is mostly to safeguard the collection from fires and water damage. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present the nation simply has no money.”