Graying Thieves Who Nearly Got Away with a Record Heist in London
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Reading between the lines they'd also racked up an impressive stretch of prison time, individually and collectively. So perhaps were behind the curve in understanding just how modern intelligence-led policing and the surveillance state have converged to make their former profession extremely questionable.
(A supplementary point: the problem with criminology is that it's the study of the criminal mind -- but the only criminal minds available for study are the ones who were stupid enough to get caught. These guys got lucky (if the on-site security guard had done his job and checked inside the premises properly, they'd have walked into a police trap on their second attempt), but luck wasn't enough. They were still running on a classic 1970s-80s London gangland script, and were known to the Met as robbery suspects with prior form. By speaking aloud about what they'd done they basically handed the police enough evidence to roll them up. Score: old-school bank robbers 0; modern surveillance state: 1.)
EDIT Also I see that the article says that two of the men were arrested whilst (driving?) with some of the loot. I'm not sure of the current status of stop and search but I'm fairly sure that the police have rather broad powers that don't require a warrant to search people outside of their home.
Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm definitely not your lawyer. If you are looking for legal advice then hire a solicitor.
Other disclaimer: I'm in the minority that thinks that everyone has something to hide -- even if only their bank details.
They continued to talk about it. Mistake, period. Just, no. If I ever do something illegal, I will never talk about it after the fact.
I have even had conversations with friends when I was younger:
"Hey, how did you manage to get away from <place that got busted>?"
"<incredulous look on my face> Why would you even ask me to admit I did something illegal that actually got busted by the police? And, even if I were there, why would you expect me to be stupid enough to answer?"
It was a pretty impressive heist but the after-execution flopped like a plane made out of mercury.
They gambled on the courts not prosecuting old-timers for compassionate reasons.
Yet, the coolest thief/ves wouldn't have let themselves be caught and would be basking on a warm tropical island they own.
1) You're saying this because you're intelligent. But because you're intelligent, you're also less likely to turn to a life of crime. You can make money honestly and you have a lot to lose if you get busted. Crooks tend to be uneducated and ignorant.
2) It's easy to keep a secret that only you know. But there's usually more than one person involved in a crime. Are all of your companions in crime going to be as careful? People just can't resist talking. They want to brag. They want to tell their friends and loved ones. And as time goes on, people let their guard down.
Only the ones you've heard about.
Also: Wall Street is full of educated guys who are outright criminals.
That is "white-collar crime" which is a different thing entirely. It revolves around exploiting the loopholes around laws, rather than actually breaking them. He is talking about "blue-collar crime" which is about outright breaking the laws. In the white crimes, no statesman can punish you since there is no legal evidence against you - the issues are with the legal framework.
The absence of violence (murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc.) or physical force against property (burglary, grand theft auto, etc.) is what defines a white-collar crime. They involve abuses of trust. "White-collar" just refers to the fact that people in white-collar professions are typically the ones have enough power entrusted to them to be able to commit these crimes.
Of course, there's no perfect taxonomy and you can argue all day about whether a particular crime is white-collar or blue-collar.
White collar crime is real, actual crime and violation of real, actual laws. It refers to non-violent, financially motivated crimes. But they're real crimes.
While this is true in the general, there is (at least in Australia) a number of crooks I've come across when I was younger and doing things you shouldn't do that were incredibly intelligent; which is why they had others commit crimes for them, and were suitably paranoid. And were rarely caught. I assume that's likely the case in most places around the world.
Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" should be a compulsory read for any self-respecting criminal mastermind, if anything to stop them from saying "I will never do X and they will never catch me".
There is a big difference between "I won't talk about my crime after the fact and make catching me easy" and "Not talking about my crime means they will never catch me."
I'm not stupid--arrogance is the downfall of many a criminal. If I commit a crime, there will be smart people trying to get me. No action will guarantee that I would never be caught. However, I can make it a lot more difficult for someone trying to catch me if I try not to do patently stupid things like actively confessing to someone.
What turned out was pretty far from that. Still, it was worth the watch, for the recreation of drilling through the wall, decent into the elevator shaft and safe deposit box smashing.
Poetic, in a way.
Could a person prove that one has successfully stolen a large amount of money in an unspecified series of heists, without actually incriminating oneself with having been a participant in any given heist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_Garden_safe_deposit_bur...