Pages

▼

Tuesday, 19 July 2022

Somehow the difference isn't surprising



Gems and jewellery worth up to $100m stolen in heist on armoured van in California

The vehicle had been transporting the precious cargo between jewellery shows when it was robbed, authorities say.

Brandy Swanson, director of security company Brink's, which owned the van, said between 25 and 30 bags were taken, containing an unknown number of individual pieces.

Estimates of the value of the loot vary wildly, with 18 victims reporting more than $100m (£84.3m) in losses, while a Brink's spokesperson said the items were valued at less than $10m (£8.4m).
at

5 comments:

  1. Sam Vega19 July 2022 at 13:45

    Here's a radical solution. Why don't both parties agree on what the stuff is worth before it's handed over?

    ReplyDelete
  2. wiggiatlarge19 July 2022 at 14:08

    Ah the law of diminishing returns has come into play early........

    ReplyDelete
  3. decnine19 July 2022 at 15:49

    Sounds more like the Law of Laundering Losses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James Higham19 July 2022 at 17:44

    Brandy ... one would need after that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A K Haart19 July 2022 at 18:27

    Sam - it all sounds rather iffy to me because it isn't easy to imagine the owners being uninsured. Although a jewellery dealer once told us that insurance can be a problem and in their case they were not supposed to openly disclose the value of their stock.

    Wiggia - I bet they didn't expect returns to diminish that quickly though.

    decnine - big losses though.

    James - several I imagine.

    ReplyDelete

Due to spam comments and now the UK Online Safety Act, comment moderation is on.
Anonymous or impolite comments or comments likely to be flagged by the system are liable to be treated as spam.