The Untold Story of the World's Biggest Diamond Heist

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/17-04/ff_diamonds?currentPage=all

by jwb119 • 17 years ago

108 33 17 years ago

one of the draws of thievery is that it is a profession for the renaissance man and also the profession for those who can look outside the box to solve a problem. the best way to get into a place is to use a method no one who designed the security system would have thought of.

I'm betting that a lot of people who make good thieves are also the kind who would make good entrepreneurs.

thaumaturgy2• 17 years ago

Be careful not to confuse common thievery with the Hollywood style, or the occasional case like this one.

The vast majority of thievery is simply bashing car windows or taking advantage of naivete.

raganwald• 17 years ago

Be careful not to confuse common entrepreneurism with tech start-ups. The vast majority of business startups are landscaping and snow-plow services or dry cleaning store-fronts ;-)

vinutheraj• 17 years ago

I am actually in awe of this guy right now [:D], man, this is some really exciting profession, thievery, its more like an art ! This story was better than any episode of Hustle !

nazgulnarsil3• 17 years ago

this would make a good movie. it's quite funny that despite the extreme technical sophistication of the vault the thieves were only undone by a panicky cohort.

mhb• 17 years ago

In that vein, I'd recommend Inside Man:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454848/

dantheman4• 17 years ago

Amazing story, once again security fails due to a lot of human error.

Spoilers below if you haven't read the article:

1. The key shouldn't be kept in the closet outside the safe

2. Opening the door should force the magnetic sensor to be triped, the door must be in the way of the sensor. Additionally, why was the sensor on the outside of the door?

3. The combination lock should have a viewing angle that requires the user to block any cameras.

4. You need human patrols.

5. Sensors should be independent; the heat/motion sensor shouldn't both need to be tripped.

6. They needed sensors that could not be easily seen or detected by someone in the safe (hidden cameras, sensors embedded in another object).

7. The needed multiple sensors instead of one each.

8. The sensors should adjust the current flowing through them so that the wires can't be bridged, and the wires shouldn't be exposed.

9. There needs to be a random factor inserted such as random patrols, a sensor that moves in a random way, the combination is changed randomly.

10. They should have a time control on the safe that only allows it to be opened during certain times. There could be an override, but it'd be it should be difficult and rarely used (hard to copy).

Just a few off the top of my head, more cameras would also be good -- what else did they do wrong?

dantheman4• 17 years ago

11. Video cameras -- keep the lights on everywhere.

nazgulnarsil3• 17 years ago

There needs to be a random factor inserted

thiis the #1 thing that would prevent a lot of crime. people dont do it because it makes logistics harder. people like routines.

ErrantX• 17 years ago

DOnt forget this was several years ago - some of the technology was not a minature as it might be now :)

thaumaturgy2• 17 years ago

On #8, I was surprised that this hack worked at all, especially in what must have been a terribly expensive alarm system. It should have been monitoring for changes in both voltage and resistance, and tripping the alarm if the circuit fluctuated.

If nothing else, it would help detect a failing component.

nkurz2• 17 years ago

Upvote for raising clear points, but at heart I think I disagree with your premises. Your thesis seems to be that by throwing more resources at the problem the vault could be made more secure. Likely true, but at what cost, both in hassle and money?

You seem to be arguing for overengineering without considering the costs. Should the failsafes also have failsafes, should the backups have their own backups? And what if the additional security measures add additional risks? Take #4, "human patrols". Unless implemented very carefully, greater access for security personnel could well add more risk than benefit.

I'm not even sure that one should argue that the vault failed from the point of view of the owners. It was designed well enough for them to do their daily business and such that they were able to obtain insurance on the contents. A vault doesn't have to be impregnable, only visibly difficult to steal from.

gdee2• 17 years ago

Allegedly, the robbers walked with 100M euros without cleaning the vault. Price would have to be really steep for those additional security measures for their cost to be an issue I think.

> A vault doesn't have to be impregnable, only visibly difficult to steal from.

I'm pretty sure a vault in this situation has to be really impenetrable and definitely not just visibly difficult to steal from.

What you're proposing is the exact situation they had. The result didn't look good.

potatolicious• 17 years ago

Well, there are a few simple fixes that wouldn't have cost much at all but would've significantly improved the security of the vault:

1 - The magnetic plate sensors should NOT be accessible while the vault is closed. There is no reason why this should have been mounted outside the vault instead of inside.

2 - All sensors in the vault were tied to a single circuit . Shorting just two wires was enough to take every single sensor in the room offline. That's ridiculous.

3 - You shouldn't have a simple "break circuit if alarm tripped" design at all. You have a full-blown sensor package mounted on a wall in a secure vault, is it too much to ask that the sensor respond to pings? This is a fairly minimal cost (+$100 per sensor, maybe?) that would also make it impossible to short the sensor circuit or otherwise take a sensor offline without somebody realizing.

wallflower• 17 years ago

> 1. The key shouldn't be kept in the closet outside the safe

How do you lock up the 'impossible to duplicate key' - by definition you would need a lower-level security key to secure it?

rjurney• 17 years ago

This is the most entertaining article I have read in a very long time.

dantheman4• 17 years ago

The thieves made quite a few mistakes.

1. Why did they have anything with their names on it. The invoice, and business card should have been destroyed long before they broke in.

2. He should have emptied his apartment before the robbery.

3. Of course the other trash should have been destroyed.

4. Why didn't he have a back up plan for his friend, he knew his friend might get panicky, so he should've planned to drop him off at the earliest possible moment.

5. They should've done random checks to make sure the cases they were moving contained the diamonds (if you believe this segment of the story).

jfornear• 17 years ago

For all we know, these 'mistakes' could have been intended. :D

dantheman4• 17 years ago

I don't quite follow your reasoning, why would they want to get caught? Or are you implying that they may have been framed?

yason• 17 years ago

So, while they did arrange for and actually worked out a spectacular break-in, then they got caught because of stupid lack of planning. And there was a scamming Jewish dealer involved, or maybe not. And of course they like to brag about not really telling whether the insurance scam cover story itself is a cover-story.

To me it smells so fishy that I could imagine that they're not only pretty good thieves but also really good at writing bad ficticious criminal stories. Well, hence the six years of silence, perhaps?

One thing probably happened and a whole another thing was now told; it's just that they practically borrowed anything like that you might see in a Hollywood movie in the criminal genre. Just nicely laid around the undeniable facts. And like a good movie this story also ends with a lot of presented implications but nothing you would know for sure.

According to my limited and somewhat indirect knowledge of criminals there are two kinds that get caught. There are those who are utterly spontaneous, idiotic, just otherwise crack-headed or all three and they get caught because of the simplest things. Then there are those who are actually professional and get caught because of being betrayed or because of unbelievably back luck.

These guys are neither; despite imprisoned for a few years because of the things laid out in the story, maybe they were actually never caught for what they actually did?

It's an ancient strategy to admit something and getting away with that, while actually having done a lot more than just that something.

mroman• 17 years ago

In all seriousness, doesn't Notarbartolo look like pg in that picture?

I swear, to me, he looks a lot like pg!

justlearning• 17 years ago

the one thing that I don't get is how they managed the camera in the room to capture the safe lock and the fire extinguisher? i could visualize the whole drama except for this part

Eliezer• 17 years ago

Who's dumb enough to steal diamonds?

sho2• 17 years ago

People who want an untraceable, universally recognised store of value?

You might as well ask who's dumb enough to steal gold.

And yes, I know that the value of diamonds is largely artificial. However, the current situation is, and is likely to remain for some time, that people think diamonds are valuable, and will trade them for actual money at a reasonably consistent exchange rate, anywhere in the world, no questions asked.

There's quite an interesting story in this whole system, actually. Diamonds have become a kind of underground currency in some circles. Unlike gold, they're not metallic, so can be transported safely by air. Unlike paintings (another other major money laundering commodity), they're small and not delicate. One could write an interesting analysis of the dynamics of such a self-supporting, consensual-illusion-becomes-reality of the diamond trade. It really is proof that if something is needed, people will make it.

Yes, it's carbon that has been compressed a bit. So what? The romans used salt as a currency! The point is, as of today, diamonds are an excellent currency to be paid in, especially if you have something to hide.

RobGR• 17 years ago

I understand from various articles I have read, that when you go to actually sell loose diamonds, you don't get much for them and find it hard to get near the "appraised value" offered.

Consider this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/198202/diamond

I believe the problem the article describes, the lack of a secondary market in diamonds, still exists. However, the article was published in 1982, and the prediction of collapse in the diamond bubble didn't happen.

rob_rasmussen• 17 years ago

Great story, and also gave me a flash of insight: when considering people to work with, "Would I plan a bank heist with this person?" isn't a half bad question to ask. It implies complete trust both in the person and their ability to perform.

(Or maybe I'm just goofy...when I can't put my finger on what's causing me to hesitate about a person or situation, off-the-wall questions/scenarios usually help me figure out what's really bothering me.)

The Untold Story of the World's Biggest Diamond Heist

Related Stories