Arrests made in largest jewelry heist in U.S. history

[GON]

Interesting read. A bit of a lengthy LA times article..I recall this heist, and it seemed likely a inside job. Article suggests otherwise. Much but not all of the $100 million of stolen gold and jewelry reported gone.

One of many quirky things in the article is that Brinks sued the jewelry dealers as the dealers under declared the value of the jewelry, they only declared 8.7 million, in 100 million reported worth of jewelry.

The insured state Brinks is liable for the entire 100 million as the fine print in the contract was to small to read, and Brinks was neglecting in its duties to safeguard the jewelry.

All goes to show that a contract can always be challenged.

The article does not state how they found the criminals. I suspect the suspect in a Arizona prison sung for a earlier release.

Fascinating.


https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-17/multimillion-dollar-brinks-heist

 

[KrisZ]

What’s interesting to me is how the jewelry dealers are reported to have “under declared” the value of their inventory, likely to reduce insurance costs, yet if a normal person did the same they would’ve been accused of fraud.

They lied plain and simple and I hope Brinks cleans them out in court.

 

[Kira]

Maybe they will be so accused.

A security contractor's big rig stops in "Nowheresville".....so a guy could enjoy a rest stop meal and another (who's apparently deaf) could take a nap.....instead of speedily refreshing the driver and crew en route?
Sure stinks to my nose.

 

[mk378]

It would be interesting to see the insured's legal theory that the insurer should pay them more than the value that was declared when obtaining the insurance.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Behind a firewall for me unfortunately.

I don't know how you can insure for one amount and then collect on a larger amount. I just changed homeowners insurance and there sending an inspector to make sure I didn't lie on the application.

As for the "fine print being too small", then if you can't read it you shouldn't sign it.

Clearly different rules for special folks.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Paywall-free link from MSN

 

[SC Maintenance]

Paywall-free link from MSN

Thank you for the link.

In reading the whole thing, its another example of money can't buy intelligence, clearly.

What a comedy of errors, by the jewelers and Brinks

 

[mk378]

I assume the jewelry dealers have refused to take payment for the declared value, since that would mean Brinks would then own any of the loot that might be recovered.

What a comedy of errors

Those guys are millionaire businessmen. They know exactly what they are doing.

 

[Hall]

What’s interesting to me is how the jewelry dealers are reported to have “under declared” the value of their inventory, likely to reduce insurance costs, yet if a normal person did the same they would’ve been accused of fraud.

Not sure that's the case. IMO, Brinks should only liable to pay them up to the declared value. The only entity hurt is the one that tried to save a buck.... When you say if a normal person claimed a different value, you left out that that person claimed a value HIGHER than actual. That's definitely fraud.

At my work, we have a rather expensive product that comes (4) pieces in a box. When we ship (4) of them together, we declare / insure them for the value of (2). Who are we hurting ? We are gambling that not all (4) pieces are damaged and in my experience, at most, (1) might be. If 3-4 are damaged, the shipping company only owes us for what we claimed and we "lose".

 

[Vil_Riker]

I highly doubt that it was worth $100m but was more than $8.7m. Likely around $15-20m retail value.

 

[Hall]

Likely around $15-20m retail value.

I don't think they should be reimbursed for "retail value" either though. For one, they can make up any price they want (pre-theft) and depending on the product, they can't 100% say it's absolutely lost revenue. Like when shoplifters steal things and the headline is "thieves make off with $6000 in merchandise". Okay, but how much did the store pay for those goods, $3000, etc, etc ? Their insurance isn't going to reimburse them $6k.

 

[Fitter30]

Sound fishy to me. They didn't wake the guard or why didn't one get the food? Armed guards following.

 

[Pew]

Sound fishy to me. They didn't wake the guard or why didn't one get the food? Armed guards following.

Same here. It reeks of "I know somebody who knows somebody" for insurance fraud.

 

[fdcg27]

Same here. It reeks of "I know somebody who knows somebody" for insurance fraud.

When I saw this on the news I also thought it smelled a little ripe.
If you had 100M in jewelry to move, would you throw it into the back of a truck with two guys who thought it okay to stop wherever and gab a bite and a nap with no security escort?
I'd think you'd pay the few hundred grand to charter something with two wings, two engines and two pilots.