Paris Museum Heist Puts Focus on Security Concerns

Entering the world’s most-visited museum in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable historical gems and disappearing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and ensuing Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who study patterns in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the latest in a series of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, perpetuating a pattern that has appeared over the last decade in Europe, the UK and the US. The venue, they propose, would have been of lesser importance to the criminals.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take expensive jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because these days a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts indicate that many outlets have beefed up their security in recent years, with armed guards on their locations and merchandise no longer kept on display overnight. Cultural institutions, 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.

“Since Covid, governments across the globe have cut back on police and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums 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 Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally been compared with the 1911 theft of the famous painting from the Louvre, carried out by the worker the thief.

More relevant points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of valuables from a German institution worth over €113m, 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 US mining museums.

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

If the artefacts were to remain intact, specialists say, the criminals 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”, said an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They are too well-known, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an auction house would want to see documentation establishing proper ownership before handling such striking pieces.”

In the previous years, museums were often reluctant to go public about the loss of well-known art pieces and would stay silent out of embarrassment. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the storage and sale of stolen art is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to stay complete or it becomes worthless, and you have to devise a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a reward.”

For comparable factors, an art detective said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you acquire these, 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 melting down or reshaping does lower the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give gems a larger and lighter appearance, and older-style stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Crucially, 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 locations with diamond expertise like a country, another nation or even as nearby as Antwerp, and find someone to cut out the stones,” said Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a leaked state auditor report expected to be published next month criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” slow progress in modernizing systems and noting that security cameras were missing in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in historic buildings with a constant flow of guests comes with risks that are impossible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to protect,” explained an art crime professor. “They often have large accessible 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 buildings should be designed “like a fortress”, noted a security advisor. “It should include multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Contemporary structures are fitted with advanced external CCTV cameras or in-built vibration sensors that alert about a broken glass in immediately, but old museums may be hesitant to alter their exteriors. Laser scanners can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Motion and sound detectors may also have to be turned off during the day as hordes of visitors walk through a museum.

The timing of the robbery, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am in Paris, was typical of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why thefts tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when guards change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Technological progress may have thrown up new devices that can notify more rapidly and effectively, but it has also provided robbers new tools with which to bypass protections. In the city, the robbers reached the museum’s upper level with a vehicle-mounted ladder and cut through a window with a electric tool.

Elaine Sciolino said the discussion in the country about the 232-year-old structure had primarily focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on protection.

The institution has an on-site brigade of about 50 permanent emergency personnel, but their purpose is mostly to safeguard the artworks from fires and flooding. “There is no rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all comes down to political will and money, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”