Q. How could the Louvre jewel robbery happen?
A. I think it was waiting to happen. There have been gangs of criminals operating all over Europe in the last few years, hitting many of the smaller, less-funded and less secure museums.
There have been issues with law enforcement as well — recently, over 1,000 criminals in the United Kingdom were released early from prison, citing lack of space. Here, we have some very audacious criminals, thumbing their nose at law enforcement and the museum community, saying they are not afraid of them and can break into the Louvre in broad daylight. This should be a wake-up call to museums everywhere.
Q. Where could these world-famous jewels go?
A. These jewels are unique and keeping them intact would be a mistake for the criminals involved.
This heist is unlike stealing, say, a Picasso where the thieves, to monetise the article, would have to keep it whole. These jewels were so attractive to criminals because all they would have to do would be to melt down the gold, take out the diamonds and sapphires and either have them recut or sell them individually.
Q. If the jewels don’t carry their unique history with them, why would they be especially valued? Why wouldn’t such thieves target an ordinary jewellery shop instead?
A. I would submit that Cartier and Tiffany in Paris are probably better protected than the Louvre. It sounds amusing but it is thought provoking and sad. Also, such criminals have no regard for cultural heritage. They are only looking for quick cash — they don’t care about Napoleon III or French history. Breaking down the pieces will also allow them to hide evidence of their crime — if a thief is caught with a Chagall, they are arrested but they can escape if they are just selling diamonds as regular gems and not part of this extraordinary collection.
Crown worn by-French Empress Eugenie
Q. Are you noting new trends in the theft of valuable artefacts?
A. The most obvious is the theft of gold. Since its price started to rise, gold thefts are increasing world-wide. There have been robberies of gold artefacts from museums in France, the Netherlands, Blenheim Palace, Cairo, etc. Criminals doing this melt down important valuables — the Drents Museum theft, for instance, involved priceless pieces of Romanian cultural heritage, now lost — for the base metal value.
Q. Are other social factors emboldening art thieves today?
A. Yes. There has been an economic downturn worldwide, driven by the ramifications of the Covid pandemic. Europe is also facing an immigration crisis, with growing crime and less government spending on both police forces as well as the arts. Thieves are aware of this — for them to take on France’s most famous museum is them saying, ‘If you cut government spending, why shouldn’t we use the Louvre as a shopping centre?’
Q. What are the rules of ownership if a private collector buys a stolen article — without knowing its real provenance?
A. Consider a painting or an idol. Such articles can be traced back to their original source and if they were stolen, the chain of custody came from a thief. The need to do due diligence is extremely important in the art world — collectors must check on why an article is being offered for sale. If an idol is supposed to come from, say, a particular temple in India, a collector must contact them and ask if they are actually selling this. In jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and the United States, the laws are pro-victim — you cannot get good title to stolen property if it came through a chain of theft. However, in jurisdictions like France and Italy, you could get title to stolen property if you did a modicum of due diligence, had no knowledge of an article being stolen and bought it in a lawful auction.
Q. What is the legal difference between the theft of the Louvre jewels robbed now versus earlier loots, like the Kohinoor taken from India?
A. Every country has its own laws. Italy, for instance, has a law that allows someone to keep a stolen article if they bought it in good faith. However, if the article was stolen from a state-owned cultural institution, that law does not apply. Another issue is the statute of limitations — this is often raised with regard to the Kohinoor, including questions of how long it has been since the collection came into British possession, the circumstances in which this happened, why India did not make a formal legal claim earlier, etc. Like the Elgin Marbles, a case like this ends up in the hands of diplomats rather than a court of law.
Views expressed are personal
The post The Louvre heist was waiting to happen — as its price rises, thefts of gold are increasing: Christopher A. Marinello appeared first on Veritas News.
