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?

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

:)

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