Paris Museum Robbery Puts Spotlight on Protection Issues

Entering the world’s most-visited art institution in the middle of the day, grabbing eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into Paris traffic on simple scooters may seem like the boldest of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent movie adaptations.

Experts who study trends in international art crime, however, see the recent robbery at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a series of quick-hit thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, perpetuating a trend that has emerged over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the criminals.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a Cartier store,” said an expert in art recovery. “It's straightforward: it’s because nowadays a Cartier store is more secure.”

A spate of violent jewellery shop thefts mean that many outlets have beefed up their protection in recent years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Museums, on the other hand, look more exposed, in part because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and partly the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, authorities across the world have cut back on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “If thieves can get into the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our institutions have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – including jewelry pieces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the crown of a historical figure featuring thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable crown once owned 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 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the theft of a multi-million pound gold toilet from a UK landmark the that year, the 2017 robbery of a valuable item from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of thefts of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the thieves would struggle to sell them. “There’s no way to sell something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented an art crime researcher of the a relevant organization.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the Ministry of Culture has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often hesitant to announce publicly about the disappearance of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is risky business for any criminal.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to stay complete or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, perhaps by moving it among difficult criminal actors,” said Marinello. “There's ongoing risk to the risk of an accomplice telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For comparable factors, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Commissioned theft is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you get caught, you end up in prison. You can't display it to your friends, you cannot bequeath 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 considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter surface area, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or reduce value for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or re-cutting removes the evidence of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the stolen goods to locations with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as Antwerp, and locate an expert to remove the gems,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized official review expected to be released soon pointing out “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in updating equipment and observing that surveillance were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying valuable objects in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Older structures are much harder to secure,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that allows for thieves to escape, 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 “like a fortress”, said a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are fitted with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated vibration sensors that alert about a smashed window in immediately, but historic institutions may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds walk through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of recent thefts, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either opening or closing times. It’s often when guards rotate and before the museum is full of visitors who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have introduced new gadgets that can notify more quickly and efficiently, but it has also given robbers new tools with which to bypass security measures. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a battery-powered disc cutter.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the historic structure had primarily focused on crowd control in the past decade, and not as much on protection.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty full-time firefighters, but their purpose is mostly to protect the artworks from blazes and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation simply has no money.”