The Untold Story of the World's Biggest Diamond Heist(wired.com)
wired.com
The Untold Story of the World's Biggest Diamond Heist
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/17-04/ff_diamonds?currentPage=all
10 comments
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I'm not quite proposing the exact situation that they had, but I am suggesting that adding more layers of physical security might not be the solution. And if indeed this was really a case of insurance fraud rather than a straight theft, perhaps the outcome was good for everyone except for the insurance company. To the extent that the vault was good enough for them to obtain insurance, the vault was good enough.
To obtain better security, the motivation of the participants needs to be analyzed. Perhaps this is a problem best solved through obscurity, with two competing security teams installing two totally separate alarms systems, each standing to lose if their alarm is defeated. Or perhaps skip the alarms, and rely on threats of deadly force.
But although any new insurer will properly demand the technological improvements illustrated here, it would be foolish to believe that technology alone will keep out a dedicated team of insiders with full access to the system. Real world security is not equivalent to public key encryption where security can be established by 'proof'.
To obtain better security, the motivation of the participants needs to be analyzed. Perhaps this is a problem best solved through obscurity, with two competing security teams installing two totally separate alarms systems, each standing to lose if their alarm is defeated. Or perhaps skip the alarms, and rely on threats of deadly force.
But although any new insurer will properly demand the technological improvements illustrated here, it would be foolish to believe that technology alone will keep out a dedicated team of insiders with full access to the system. Real world security is not equivalent to public key encryption where security can be established by 'proof'.
I fully agree with the notion that (more) technology is not always a panacea but I think it should at least be given a fair chance. That includes implementing it properly. Given that this was not the case there (at that time) I would still bet on technology going forward. And process.
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.
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.
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.
thiis the #1 thing that would prevent a lot of crime. people dont do it because it makes logistics harder. people like routines.
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.
If nothing else, it would help detect a failing component.
DOnt forget this was several years ago - some of the technology was not a minature as it might be now :)
> 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?
How do you lock up the 'impossible to duplicate key' - by definition you would need a lower-level security key to secure it?
11. Video cameras -- keep the lights on everywhere.
[deleted]
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.)
(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 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).
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).
For all we know, these 'mistakes' could have been intended. :D
I don't quite follow your reasoning, why would they want to get caught? Or are you implying that they may have been framed?
The stolen goods are still unaccounted for and four Italians (with links to the mafia) are caught after making pretty stupid mistakes for such an elaborate (and difficult) robbery. How could guys like 'The Genius' and 'The Monster' not have come up with a better plan to dispose of the trash and clean out the apartment? Maybe Notarbartolo is just serving time as part of a bigger deal, either for a share of the spoils or safety from rival mafia members? The others could have been framed, running errands like buying sandwich meats for the masterminds or having their DNA strewn across the vault. Anyone else want to write a Hollywood script with me?
This seems very likely - I imagine a lot of prosecutors are as careerist as people in any other profession. Given a choice between "high probability of successfully prosecuting someone who might have been set up" versus "low probability of successfully prosecuting the real criminals", they will, of course, pick the former.
In a way, everyone wins here - except the insurance companies, I suppose. The criminals some money, the prosecutors make a career.
In a way, everyone wins here - except the insurance companies, I suppose. The criminals some money, the prosecutors make a career.
All I know is that this story is begging for a movie to be based on (The Ocean series or The Italian Job). Hmmm... according to the article, Notarbartolo looks rather photogenic and he has the charm... maybe the real payout is Notarbartolo starring in a movie based on a heist he also starred in?
Also remember that Notarbartolo stayed quiet for years, and suddenly is willing to talk to a reporter about this. There's a reason for that. Whether he's telling the truth or not, he's speaking up because he thinks it will get him something he wants. What is it he wants?
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
I'm betting that a lot of people who make good thieves are also the kind who would make good entrepreneurs.
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.
The vast majority of thievery is simply bashing car windows or taking advantage of naivete.
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 ;-)
[deleted]
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 !
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.
In that vein, I'd recommend Inside Man:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454848/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454848/
This is the most entertaining article I have read in a very long time.
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
Who's dumb enough to steal diamonds?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem you describe may exist at the consumer level, but for the high end I don't think it is an issue. I mean think about it - secondary market? It's not like a car where you have "new" and "second hand" - it's a 50,000 year old rock. There's no such thing as a "new" diamond.
Consumers without the necessary knowledge and connections are probably taken for a ride. Dealers would exploit their lack of knowledge and options, just like 2nd hand car dealers offer terrible prices for cars - they know that if you're there at all, you're desperate. In this market, everything is sold at auction. Going to a dealer by yourself is holding a fire sale auction with 1 bidder. Of course you lose.
Between dealers, or high end customers with a dealer acting as their agent, selling for-real quantities, the market is much more stable, consistent, and liquid. Unless you want to be utterly ripped off, you must buy at a proper auction and sell at a proper auction too. You can say the same about pretty much any other store of value in the world, by the way.
But all this is obvious; if diamonds really did lose half their value every time they changed hands, no-one would bother - and yet they obviously do.
By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with that article - which I read years ago. I think I read it in the actual magazine! Anyway, yes, the value of diamonds is almost completely illusory - it's wholly artificial and if if the real supply were ever released to market, value would plummet. However, that hasn't happened, the consensual hallucination that compressed carbon is worth a lot of money stands, and you can buy and sell diamonds for a lot of money. I don't see this market changing anytime soon. It is in no-one's interest to break the spell.
And if you got rid of diamonds, people would just find something else with an agreed value. A lot of people need this kind of currency. Until crypt.kk comes online, of course.
Consumers without the necessary knowledge and connections are probably taken for a ride. Dealers would exploit their lack of knowledge and options, just like 2nd hand car dealers offer terrible prices for cars - they know that if you're there at all, you're desperate. In this market, everything is sold at auction. Going to a dealer by yourself is holding a fire sale auction with 1 bidder. Of course you lose.
Between dealers, or high end customers with a dealer acting as their agent, selling for-real quantities, the market is much more stable, consistent, and liquid. Unless you want to be utterly ripped off, you must buy at a proper auction and sell at a proper auction too. You can say the same about pretty much any other store of value in the world, by the way.
But all this is obvious; if diamonds really did lose half their value every time they changed hands, no-one would bother - and yet they obviously do.
By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with that article - which I read years ago. I think I read it in the actual magazine! Anyway, yes, the value of diamonds is almost completely illusory - it's wholly artificial and if if the real supply were ever released to market, value would plummet. However, that hasn't happened, the consensual hallucination that compressed carbon is worth a lot of money stands, and you can buy and sell diamonds for a lot of money. I don't see this market changing anytime soon. It is in no-one's interest to break the spell.
And if you got rid of diamonds, people would just find something else with an agreed value. A lot of people need this kind of currency. Until crypt.kk comes online, of course.
In all seriousness, doesn't Notarbartolo look like pg in that picture?
:)
I swear, to me, he looks a lot like pg!
:)
I swear, to me, he looks a lot like pg!
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?