Details of $463K Christmas Day bank heist revealed in labour battle between Brink’s and fired guard | 24CA News

On Christmas Day 2016, 4 folks sporting flesh-toned masks and winter clothes made what you would possibly name the final word in unauthorized withdrawals from 5 financial institution machines in Langley, B.C.

They stole practically half 1,000,000 {dollars} in a Yuletide heist that has by no means resulted in costs, and even public disclosure — till now.

The principal suspect within the theft — a former Brink’s Company guard — has been preventing to get his job again for the reason that international safety agency fired him in November 2018. And Brink’s has been attempting to get him to pay again $463,220 it shelled out to make issues entire for the sufferer financial institution.

The dispute has come earlier than each a labour arbitrator and a B.C. Supreme Court decide, who dominated final month that the arbitrator was appropriate in deciding he had the jurisdiction to resolve the matter.

CBC News has obtained the courtroom paperwork filed in relation to the newest ruling, which element a prison caper described in a single set of submissions as “involving significant planning and technical aspects.”

A check run?

The story begins on Nov. 22, 2014 — when the suspect was employed.

According to one of many firm’s submissions, Brink’s armoured guards use specialised keys, PIN numbers and combos to entry financial institution machines on assigned routes.

Each guard is assigned a separate key with a singular serial quantity that triggers an inner machine in a high-security lock to file a date and time of entry.

Brink’s generates new combos for every armoured guard assigned to a run. Guards are issued the combos by figuring out themselves to the corporate’s nationwide shopper companies centre prior to every outing.

Brink’s claims the suspect copied a co-worker’s key sooner or later and likewise obtained his PIN quantity. In one submission, the guards’ union, Unifor Local 114, refers back to the co-worker as “Mr. X.”

“The employer alleges that on Dec. 17, 2016, the [suspect] or another person, pretending to be Mr. X, made two separate calls … to obtain combinations,” the doc reads.

“They characterize the purpose of this call as being a test to see if the robbers could obtain the combination for the [bank machines] that they would break into on the night of the robbery.”

‘An intimate data’

According to the courtroom paperwork, within the months earlier than the heist, the suspect was repeatedly assigned to a run containing the branches that have been hit “and would have acquired in that time an intimate knowledge of the location of doors, lights switches and alarms.”

He went on medical depart two weeks previous to the theft and was off work on Christmas Day.

On Christmas Eve, somebody pretending to be Mr. X referred to as Brink’s to acquire 13 combos for seven financial institution branches.

But the corporate alleges this was no costume rehearsal.

The union’s submissions describe the robberies as they unfolded on video surveillance.

“Two robbers are seen at each location unlocking the doors to the bank branch and then proceeding through open areas of the branch to an entrance to an ATM room. The robbers then enter the ATM room. At that point, one of the robbers obscures the range of view of a surveillance camera with an umbrella,” the union states.

“The two robbers then proceed to breach the security system on the ATM machine itself. From there, money is removed from the ATM and put into a bag, and the robbers proceed back out of the ATM room and then the branch building.”

Court paperwork say the stolen cash was in “$20 and $50 denomination notes.”

Brink’s believes the thieves purposely left simply sufficient money in every of the goal ATMs to keep away from triggering a community error that might have occurred if purchasers have been unable to withdraw cash.

The branches have been re-armed after every hit, which ensured safety guards weren’t alerted. The ATMs ran out of money over the subsequent three days.

Mr. X cleared of wrongdoing

The RCMP started an investigation into the theft in January 2017. The firm claims police scheduled interviews with 20 workers, together with the suspect — who didn’t attend his.

Brink’s additionally believes the suspect despatched a virus from his telephone which erased the contents of Apple units belonging to a number of of his co-workers.

In March 2017, the RCMP cleared Mr. X  of any wrongdoing after he went by way of “multiple police interviews, and participated in two polygraphs,” the corporate claims.

According to the courtroom paperwork, whereas no costs have ever been laid, the suspect was arrested at one level and the Vancouver Police Department acquired a name from Crime Stoppers claiming the suspect was concerned.

The firm’s submissions embrace the forwards and backwards between the corporate and the suspect within the two years following the theft. They embrace stress leaves and some extent at which the worker allegedly stated, “lay me off and I will go away.”

The newest B.C. Supreme Court determination means the questions of the suspect’s job and the demand that he repay the money Brink’s forked out to its shopper will probably be settled by a labour arbitrator, versus a civil courtroom decide.

The union had claimed that Brink’s was attempting to make use of a collective settlement as a way to recoup a business loss.

But the B.C. Supreme Court decide who determined the matter stated, “the conduct at issue is expressly covered by the collective agreement,” which says workers will comply with additional the pursuits of the armoured automobile business and Brink’s.

It’s arduous to think about a much bigger failure of that obligation — in keeping with the choice — than allegedly masterminding a half-million greenback Christmas heist.