Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Florida ORC Case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Florida ORC Case

    $60 to $100 MILLION dollar Florida ORC -theft case.

    See the video here

    You've got to watch the commercial first.
    Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
    Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

    Contributor to Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference

  • #2
    I am unable to access the video, maybe just my computer?

    What are the particulars in the case and are there any online printed articles on this issue in FL?

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't know why you can't see it. If your at work, maybe access is denied. It's a video from ABC.
      Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
      Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

      Contributor to Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference

      Comment


      • #4
        Curtis, thank you for sharing this information. I've emailed a copy to our County Crime Prevention folks on the outside chance they've not seen it before.
        That is as interesting and the ring of theives from New York stealing clothing up and down the I-95 corridor.
        Thanks again and enjoy the day,
        Bill

        Comment


        • #5
          I family group in Sydney who were inbreeders (won't go there) followed the train line and bus services for their routine attacks. They would hit places within a 10 minute walk from the train station as none of them drove and most of them had unpaid parking and transit fines for fare evasion or theft and the parents or brother/sister really had both been banned for driving for life due to DUI (DWI for our seppo mates). EVERYONE in LP knew where the operated from and basically they were banned from everyone but the corner store and 2 7/11's over the years. $100m is alot of razor blades but this is on a mass scale. How many more will be found out ?
          "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

          Comment


          • #6
            Just incredible!

            I just saw the video on these thieves on a morning television show.

            At up to $100,000,000 dollars stolen by the group, they probably caused a few busiinesses to go out of business, and probably caused more than a few people to lose their jobs.

            It is just amazing how long they got away with this criminal activity.

            I wonder if it will cause any business to rethink their need for security in their business, and if that thinking will cause them to increase (or start having security), or if it will do just the opposite and cause them to decrease, or get rid of their security completely.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bpdblue View Post
              I just saw the video on these thieves on a morning television show.

              At up to $100,000,000 dollars stolen by the group, they probably caused a few busiinesses to go out of business, and probably caused more than a few people to lose their jobs.

              It is just amazing how long they got away with this criminal activity.

              I wonder if it will cause any business to rethink their need for security in their business, and if that thinking will cause them to increase (or start having security), or if it will do just the opposite and cause them to decrease, or get rid of their security completely.
              I would only be surprised if they got away with it for this long if it was remotely possible that the numbers quoted could ever happen. The mere fact that they said this case could be anywhere from $60 to $100 million means they really don't have the slightest idea of how much this case was valued at.

              Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this was not a large case, but it is pretty much impossible for it to be a $100 million case. That would require that each of the 18 people involved in the ring would have had to stolen an average of over $3,000 a day, every single day for 5 years. The story said they were stealing from grocery and convenience stores. $3,000 from a grocery store is a HUGE amount of items.

              As an example, the story said at one time they stole $4500 worth of Oil of Olay products. It has been a while since I worked drug stores, but when I was there the average price of Oil of Olay products was in the $10-12 range. If we guess that the products averaged $20, that 225 individual items. Could this happen? Yes. Could this happen every day for 5 years? Highly unlikely. 18 individuals succeeding at the same thing every day for 5 years? Impossible.

              Now, if this was going to be possible at all, it would have to be by hitting many stores to accumulate the dollar totals each day, instead of just doing it in one store. So, if we guess that they averaged 3 stores a day to get this much, that would be a total of 54 stores a day between all 18. The article said they did not go back to the same store for a few weeks to avoid detection. Let's assume they then did not go back but once every two weeks to the same stores. If my math is correct, that is 756 different stores every two weeks. Each store would then be hit 26 times a year.

              The point of all this is to break down the individual losses per store. The average is $20 million a year divided between 756 stores. That is only $26,455 per store. This is equal to about one half of a percent of shrink in a $5 million sales store.

              In reality, this case should not really be causing these companies to re-think their security. Even in the worst case scenario, the losses really do not justify adding personnel. There is no doubt that the companies should re-evaluate some of the things they are doing, but these numbers should not really lead someone to just decide to add more security people. Especially when you consider that many of these companies must have had security already, because that is how they got the video in the first place.

              Let's not be so quick to accept vague estimates promoted in the media, and let's not be so quick to conclude that more people or other security products would automatically solve the problem.
              www.plsolutions.net
              www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Something to consider as Lynch posted - $4.5k is alot of merchandise and this means alot of beauty challenged women around (and some men too) not to mention replenishing this stock. What retailer regardless of side would let $4.5k of cosmestics walk out (again based all on assumptions) but I would like to know HOW they concluded their final amounts.
                "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

                Comment


                • #9
                  Let's not be so quick to accept vague estimates promoted in the media, and let's not be so quick to conclude that more people or other security products would automatically solve the problem.
                  This is also based off the assumptions that:
                  • the 18 people arrested were the only people involved (highly doubtful; there are always more members of a gang than you can track down, and they don't usually keep accurate personnel records)
                  • that all of the thefts were occurring in the same geographic region (unlikely; sure, the ring was based in FL, but that doesn't preclude them receiving "shipments" or merchandise from other locations, or having multiple warehouses nation-wide for the ease of re-distribution)
                  • none were ever caught (highly unlikely; most likely singles and pairs were caught all over the place, just nobody made the connection to this group)
                  Unfortunately, we may never know the full truth about the entire operation.
                  "I don't do judgment. Just retrieval."

                  "The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by darkenna View Post
                    Let's not be so quick to accept vague estimates promoted in the media, and let's not be so quick to conclude that more people or other security products would automatically solve the problem.
                    This is also based off the assumptions that:
                    • the 18 people arrested were the only people involved (highly doubtful; there are always more members of a gang than you can track down, and they don't usually keep accurate personnel records)
                    • that all of the thefts were occurring in the same geographic region (unlikely; sure, the ring was based in FL, but that doesn't preclude them receiving "shipments" or merchandise from other locations, or having multiple warehouses nation-wide for the ease of re-distribution)
                    • none were ever caught (highly unlikely; most likely singles and pairs were caught all over the place, just nobody made the connection to this group)
                    Unfortunately, we may never know the full truth about the entire operation.
                    I made no assumptions. You are the one throwing out assumptions. Yes, we may not know the full story, and if the facts are different then my analysis would also be different. Taking the story at face value for the facts provided (18 people, 5 years, stealing from grocery and convenience stores), it seems rather impossible that the amounts could be anywhere close to what was reported.

                    As far as shipping from all over the place to a central point, again, the story made no mention of this or implied this at all. So, I cannot assume that must be happening when there is no mention of it. If this was the case, then that would change the facts and change my analysis. However, this type of scenario is very rare. Just as you said they don't keep personnel records, they also don't advertise for open "positions" that they are looking to hire. Most rings are actually fairly small with a group of people that know and trust each other. They keep more control that way and have less chance of a leak coming out.

                    Your third point about none being caught is inaccurate in that I never assumed none were not caught. In fact, the story says many have past records for being caught shoplifting. However, getting caught would cause interruptions in the business. There would be bumps and slow downs, which would further serve to show that the $3000 a day pace, 7 days a week, from all 18 memebers is pretty much completely unimaginable.

                    One other point that I did not add, the news stories said that not all 18 were involved in the actual shoplifting of the items, and that some were exclusively involved in the distribution and sales of the stolen items. One more point that makes the numbers unfathomable.

                    So, if there is more to the story, I am willing to listen to it and consider the possiblity of the impact being more significant. But, I am not going to assume facts that don't exist, as you have done. You might counter that I am assuming the fact of $100 million was wrong, but keep in mind that was not a reported fact of the case. There was a general estimate of $60 - $100 million. Just an estimate of long term damage, not a factual report of recovered merchandise. I am challenging that assumption as being nearly impossible, based upon the provided facts of the thefts.

                    So, as I said, don't be too quick to accept reported estimations of dollar losses without closer scrutiny. And, as a result, don't be too quick to assume there would be a better solution by just throwing more money at the problem.
                    www.plsolutions.net
                    www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Lynch, you need to re-read my post, and this time listen to the tone in which the words were written. You might be surprised to find I was agreeing with you, and pointing out further possible, plausible, and even likely reasons--generated from what I have learned during my years of experience in the field--why we cannot simply accept the media reports without knowing further facts.

                      I would offer you the advice of not being so quick to jump down the throats of others; the ride may sometimes lead to a different organ than the stomach.
                      "I don't do judgment. Just retrieval."

                      "The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by darkenna View Post
                        Lynch, you need to re-read my post, and this time listen to the tone in which the words were written. You might be surprised to find I was agreeing with you, and pointing out further possible, plausible, and even likely reasons--generated from what I have learned during my years of experience in the field--why we cannot simply accept the media reports without knowing further facts.

                        I would offer you the advice of not being so quick to jump down the throats of others; the ride may sometimes lead to a different organ than the stomach.
                        You know, I listened and listened and listened, yet I could never hear the tone of your words. All I heard was the TV that is on in the next room.

                        When I read your post again, the tone still "sounded" negative. Sorry if I mininterpreted what you meant, but historically when someone quotes you and then says something like "This is also based off the assumptions that..." and procedes to list three points that are contradictory to what I wrote, it usually means that the quote (This) is based upon the assumptions that followed. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but that is what you wrote. So when I say that I did not make any assumptions after you just said that I did, that would seem to be a reasonable response on my part.

                        Perhaps instead of having such thin skin and assuming I am "jumping down someone's throat", why not go back think about what you actually wrote compared to what you actually meant. All I did was present a counter-argument to what I perceived was a challenge to what I wrote. Should I have realized that you meant something different from what you actually wrote? If so, then it is my mistake.

                        If you were basically agreeing with me, sorry I did not see that in what you wrote. Maybe a few other words like "I agree with you" might have cleared that one up. The last sentence did agree, but after what was written before it, it came across as sarcastic. Not that you would ever write something sarcastic.
                        www.plsolutions.net
                        www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Either way - you both raised some good points and we should consider that this may be 1 big case but I am sure there is one similar (at least) in every state - but how many more are just growing now ? 25 cases per state at $400k is $10m and based on 50 states .............. alot of peso's. As I say to my team - nice to get the busts and hit the professionals and internals but it is the ones who are doing it as we speak that we should be concerned with.
                          "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sarcasm? Me? Never!

                            There was originally an "Indeed" after the quote of your text, but it got lost in the copy-pasting for spellcheck. That was an error on my part. I would like to point out to you that I never accused you of making any assumptions; however, you accused me of making assumptions right off the bat. I put to you that I, too, made no assumptions, but rather listed other possibilities that would further make the given media reports unreliable. The points I made were not counter to your argument. This was not an attack against you; tho, I have seen you so brazenly attacked so many times I do understand if you took it as one.

                            I further put to you that you really shouldn't be looking at the text in that tone of voice, because you'll be making us all deaf before you know it!

                            Which brings up another point: a few media outlets were were crying this bit o' news quite vociferously, yet it barely registered as a blip on other well-perused sources. Why, if the case was as "out there" as is suggested, was there not far more vocal coverage?
                            "I don't do judgment. Just retrieval."

                            "The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No need to cut and past - spell check is available in the upper right corner of the box when posting.
                              Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
                              Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

                              Contributor to Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X