Seven charged in ‘largest jewelry heist in U.S. history' after $100M theft
The defendants — Carlos Victor Mestanza Cercado, Jorge Enrique Alban, Jazael Padilla Resto, Eduardo Macias Ibarra, Pablo Raul Lugo Larroig, Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores and Victor Hugo Valencia Solorzano — were named in an indictment returned last week, the Justice Department said in a statement Tuesday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jena A. MacCabe, lead attorney for the case, said that Lugo and Flores appeared in court on Tuesday and are now in custody pending trial. Their attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Padilla is in prison in Arizona serving a sentence for third-degree burglary and is expected to appear in federal court in the coming weeks, the Justice Department said.
Four of the men were still at large, the Associated Press reported.
The federal charges come after a years-long investigation into the unprecedented heist, which stunned law enforcement and left several jewelers bankrupt, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Akil Davis, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office, said in a statement that he was 'gratified that we can finally begin to give answers to the victims of this massive theft and deliver them a measure of justice by holding these defendants accountable.'
The heist occurred on July 10, 2022, on the sidelines of an international jewelry show in San Mateo, California. According to the indictment, Mestanza, Lugo, Alban and other defendants tracked a Brink's armored semitruck containing millions of dollars of jewelry as it left the show and headed south. They are accused of following the truck for approximately 300 miles overnight, to rest stops in Buttonwillow and Lebec, north of Los Angeles. During the rest stop in Lebec, prosecutors said the defendants stole 24 bags containing about $100 million of jewelry from the truck.
Law enforcement recovered some of the jewelry Monday while executing search warrants, the Justice Department said.
Some of the men are also accused of participating in three other robberies in California around that time: According to the indictment, on March 2, 2022, Mestanza, Padilla, Lugo and Valencia stole $240,573 worth of Samsung Electronics from a truck at a rest stop in Ontario. About a week later, according to the indictment, those four men and Alban stole $57,377 worth of Apple AirTags from a box truck in Fontana, and one man threatened the truck driver with a knife. Finally, on May 25, Mestanza, Padilla, Lugo, Valencia and Alban allegedly stole $14,081 worth of Samsung Electronics from a semitruck in Fontana.
All seven were charged with conspiracy to commit theft from interstate and foreign shipment and theft from interstate and foreign shipment. Mestanza, Padilla, Lugo, Valencia, and Alban are also charged with conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery and interference with commerce by robbery, as well as theft from interstate and foreign shipment, the Justice Department said.
The indictment lays out how the men traveled to various locations, 'including traveling long distances, to identify and rob, steal, unlawfully take, and unlawfully carry away goods and chattels from victims who were operating in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce.'
But the haul from the suspects' alleged July 10-11 jewelry heist was significantly larger than those from the previous robberies described in the indictment.
Some of the jewelers whose merchandise was stolen have been engaged in a legal battle with the security company Brink's over disagreements about the true value of the haul, the L.A. Times reported. The jewelers sued Brink's, alleging gross negligence, and claimed their goods were valued at $100 million, the outlet said.
Brink's filed its own lawsuit that said that the jewelers 'substantially under-declared the value of their shipments,' and said the declared value of the stolen goods was close to $9 million.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell pardon would give him ‘pause,' won't get ahead of Trump
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he believes Ghislaine Maxwell, a key associate of Jeffrey Epstein currently serving 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, should face "a life sentence." "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" July 27. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least." His remarks to NBC come as many, including supporters of President Donald Trump, clamor for testimony from Maxwell. Some followers of the case have proposed a pardon in exchange, but Trump told reporters on July 25 he hadn't considered the move. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," the president said. Epstein was charged with sexually trafficking minors and died by suicide while in detention in 2019. Maxwell, his longtime girlfriend, has been accused of recruiting minors for the disgraced financier's predation. Maxwell maintains her innocence and is appealing her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Johnson in his interview with NBC reiterated that pardons aren't up to him, telling the outlet, "obviously that's a decision of the president." "I won't get in front of him," Johnson said. "That's not my lane." But, later in the interview he noted, "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it." "So, again, not my decision," he added, "but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." The Trump administration for weeks has faced backlash over its handling of Epstein's case. Critics from Democratic lawmakers to prominent Republicans and slices of Trump's voter base accuse the president and other officials of not being transparent with the American people. The speaker has faced his own ongoing Epstein-related criticism, as some House Republicans have zeroed in on the Justice Department's recent review of Epstein's case and are calling for related documents to be released publicly. Democrats in Congress have piled on too. Reps. Ro Khanna, D-California, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan measure to force the Trump administration's hand in releasing the federal government's files. Also on "Meet The Press," the pair split on pardoning Maxwell. "That would be up to the president," Massie said. "But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of." Khanna disagreed, saying Maxwell shouldn't receive a pardon. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify," the California Democrat said. "But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence." Contributing: Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Mike Johnson reacts to possible pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 'life sentence,' opposes potential pardon
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he believes Ghislaine Maxwell, a key associate of Jeffrey Epstein currently serving 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, should face "a life sentence." "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" July 27. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least." His remarks to NBC come as many, including supporters of President Donald Trump, clamor for testimony from Maxwell. Some followers of the case have proposed a pardon in exchange, but Trump told reporters on July 25 he hadn't considered the move. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," the president said. Epstein was charged with sexually trafficking minors and died by suicide while in detention in 2019. Maxwell, his longtime girlfriend, has been accused of recruiting minors for the disgraced financier's predation. Maxwell maintains her innocence and is appealing her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Johnson in his interview with NBC reiterated that pardons aren't up to him, telling the outlet, "obviously that's a decision of the president." "I won't get it in front of him," Johnson said. "That's not my lane." But, later in the interview he noted, "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it." "So, again, not my decision," he added, "but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." The Trump administration for weeks has faced backlash over its handling of Epstein's case. Critics from Democratic lawmakers to prominent Republicans and slices of Trump's voter base accuse the president and other officials of not being transparent with the American people. The speaker has faced his own ongoing Epstein-related criticism, as some House Republicans have zeroed in on the Justice Department's recent review of Epstein's case and are calling for related documents to be released publicly. Democrats in Congress have piled on too. Reps. Ro Khanna, D-California, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan measure to force the Trump administration's hand in releasing the federal government's files. Also on "Meet The Press," the pair split on pardoning Maxwell. "That would be up to the president," Massie said. "But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of." Khanna disagreed, saying Maxwell shouldn't receive a pardon. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify," the California Democrat said. "But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence." Contributing: Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Prison reform laws could safely send thousands home — if they're enforced
The two of us have spent a good chunk of our lives on opposite sides of prison bars. One of us worked for 16 years in the federal Bureau of Prisons, including a stretch as acting director during the first Trump administration. The other spent 14 years in federal prison before fighting to help hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people earn their freedom and successfully reenter society. Despite these different backgrounds — or perhaps because of them — we agree on one thing: Our criminal justice system can and must do much more to enhance safety and justice for all Americans. That's why we were encouraged when, last month, the Bureau of Prisons quietly issued a new directive that will help incarcerated individuals return more quickly to their families and communities. Although we are optimistic, the devil is in the details. For this policy to succeed, it must be implemented fairly and consistently for all who qualify. The U.S. has made real progress on criminal justice over the past few decades. The crime rate has declined 61 percent since its peak in 1991. The prison population has shrunk by roughly 25 percent since 2009, and racial disparities have dropped by 40 percent. This progress came from thoughtful, bipartisan reforms. Between 2007 and 2018, 35 states passed sentencing and corrections reform laws. At the federal level, two landmark measures — the Second Chance Act and First Step Act — stand out. Signed in 2008 by President George W. Bush, the Second Chance Act funds state and local programs that help incarcerated people reenter their communities. Ten years later, Trump signed the First Step Act, which modified mandatory minimums, expanded opportunities for people to earn time credits toward early release and increased access to rehabilitative and vocational programs. Many were surprised when Trump, who had promised tougher sentences as he campaigned for office, championed the First Step Act. But he pressured Republicans in Congress to support it and enthusiastically signed it into law, calling it proof that 'America is a nation that believes in redemption.' In his second term, Trump has sent mixed signals so far. His Justice Department cut more than $500 million in state and local criminal justice grants, and Attorney General Pam Bondi rolled out new tough-on-crime policies. At the same time, Trump created a new 'pardon czar' position to advise him on presidential clemency decisions, appointing Alice Marie Johnson — who served over 20 years in federal prison before receiving clemency from Trump — to the role. The latest advancement came in June when Bureau of Prisons Director William K. Marshall III directed the bureau to fully implement both the Second Chance Act and First Step Act. Declaring 'the dawn of a new era,' Marshall promised the policy change would save money, reduce strains on corrections staff and facilities and make it easier for many incarcerated people to return home and contribute to society. This latter point is the centerpiece of the First Step Act. The act allows low-risk individuals who complete rehabilitative programs to earn 'time credits' which can be applied toward early release or to serve the remainder of their sentences in home confinement or residential reentry centers. Since its passage, the First Step Act has proven effective. A Council on Criminal Justice analysis found that individuals released under the First Step Act were 55 percent less likely to return to prison than people with similar profiles released before the law took effect. These lower recidivism rates held even among those considered higher risk by the Bureau of Prisons. Yet challenges remain. Despite receiving more than $400 million annually under the First Step Act, the Bureau of Prisons has long claimed it lacks the contract capacity to support home confinement and reentry centers. There has also been confusion about whether the First Step Act and Second Chance Act could be applied simultaneously. Both the Biden and Trump administrations initially said they could not, before allowing it. The new Bureau of Prisons policy promises to solve these issues, but its success will depend on implementation. The director's message must reach and be embraced by all corners of the system. We have seen encouraging signs thus far. This month, the Bureau of Prisons launched a task force to address logistical hurdles faced by staff — a promising step toward ensuring the policy is put into practice. Going forward, we see three top priorities. First, communication. With over 155,000 employees, the Bureau of Prisons must ensure every staff member understands this policy and why it matters. Second, training. Too often, people remain behind bars simply because staff aren't properly trained on how to apply the law. And third, accountability. Bureau of Prisons leaders must quickly address any staff who resist the changes — whether through correction or removal. In the early months of Trump's second term, we have seen America's political divides on display, from the 'big beautiful bill' to the bombing of Iran to new tariffs. Criminal justice reform should be an exception. It offers a rare opportunity for common ground — a chance to advance solutions that make our communities both safer and more just. Hugh Hurwitz worked for the Bureau of Prisons for more than 16 years, including as acting director during the first Trump administration, and is a member of the Council on Criminal Justice. Louis L. Reed, who served nearly 14 years in federal prison and later helped pass over 30 state and federal bills, including the First Step Act of 2018. He is a member of the Council on Criminal Justice's Board of Trustees.
