On July 11, 2022, at 2 a.m., a Brink's truck driver transporting jewelry between jewelry shows in California stopped at a Flying J truck stop near Lebec, north of Los Angeles. During this stop, nearly one-third of the jewelry bags being carried were stolen. Experts believe the theft involved multiple people because a large amount of jewelry was taken quickly. Some jewelers suspect the theft was an inside job or that Brink's may have hidden information. Experts also say it is unlikely the stolen jewelry will be recovered because the metal can be melted and reused, and identifying marks on the stones can be removed by thieves.
Brink's estimated the stolen jewelry was worth $8.7 million and promised to pay the affected jewelers. Some jewelers have filed lawsuits against the company. In court, they admitted they often reported lower values for the jewelry on shipping documents to reduce insurance costs. They accused Brink's of failing to secure the truck properly, as the rear doors had only a simple padlock and seal. Brink's has sued to limit its payments to the declared value of the jewelry, claiming the jewelers broke their contract. Some experts estimate the jewelry's true value could be as high as $100 million, making this one of the largest jewelry thefts in U.S. history. The loss has caused some jewelers to close their businesses.
In 2025, seven people accused of helping with the theft were charged. The FBI found these individuals had previously stolen from delivery trucks in San Bernardino County by waiting for trucks to stop at truck stops. Some of the stolen jewelry has been found. Lawyers for the jewelers argue the details of the crime show Brink's failed to protect the shipment properly.
Background
On the afternoon of July 10, 2022, jewelers at the International Gem & Jewelry Show, a traveling event held at the San Mateo County Event Center in the San Francisco Bay Area, were preparing to close their booths after three days of displaying their items. These shows are important places where many jewelry sales happen. Some sellers buy jewelry from makers using a consignment agreement, which means they only pay the maker after the item is sold. This arrangement requires trust between the seller and the maker. At the San Mateo show, items for sale included decorative beads and rare Rolex watches.
Because the jewelry on display was valuable, the show and its sellers were careful about possible thieves, especially those trying to steal quickly. Public-address announcements often reminded everyone to report any unusual behavior to security. On that day, one jeweler later said the announcements were more frequent and specific than usual, mentioning the presence of "suspicious individuals." The show’s manager, Brandy Swanson, chased a man wearing a surgical mask and an earpiece who had been sitting near the packing area after the show ended. When asked questions, the man said he did not speak English. He was escorted out of the event center and met by another similarly masked man outside.
Swanson told two workers from Brink’s about the encounter, but the workers did not seem worried. Brink’s later said they had not received any information about suspicious people or behavior from the show. Brink’s employees at the event were responsible for transporting jewelry bags to the next show in Pasadena. Many jewelers used Brink’s to move their goods because the items were worth millions of dollars, and it was safer than using their own vehicles.
James Beaty and Tandy Motley, two Brink’s guards, began loading 73 bags of jewelry into a tractor trailer. Each bag weighed between 70 and 100 pounds and was wrapped in orange plastic with color-coded tags indicating the value of the contents. Brink’s used a tractor trailer instead of armored cars because it allowed them to carry all the bags in one vehicle. The trailer was not armored, but the cab was protected. Both guards were armed.
While loading, Beaty and Motley noticed a man watching them closely from a nearby car. They were unsure if it was the same man they had seen earlier. Neither driver challenged the man because they were not certain of their suspicions. Motley told other Brink’s workers and Swanson about the situation. Others at the event also reported unusual activity. One dealer saw a car with very dark tinted windows and no license plates. When he tried to take a photo, the car left. Security also found another man with an earpiece, wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap, near the loading area. When asked to leave, he drove away in a Dodge Charger, and security took a picture of the car.
Beaty and Motley said no one told them to take extra precautions for the trip to Pasadena. After loading the truck and locking it with a padlock and plastic seal, they began their 370-mile drive shortly before 8:30 p.m. Before leaving, Beaty entered the sleeper area in the cab to rest for 10 hours, as required by federal rules before driving again.
Theft
At 2 a.m., Motley had driven almost 300 miles (480 km) without stopping on Interstate 5 since leaving San Mateo. He pulled off the highway at the Frazier Mountain Park Road exit, just south of the small town of Lebec, where Interstate 5 climbs through Tejon Pass. A short distance to the west, he turned into a Flying J truck stop on the south side of the road, just over the Los Angeles County line. Motley parked the truck and went inside to get something to eat, leaving Beaty asleep in the cab.
Motley returned almost a half hour later and, as required by company rules, inspected the vehicle. He saw that the seal at the rear had been broken and the padlock had been cut. Other than that, he noticed nothing unusual. Motley woke Beaty up, and the two checked the trailer. It appeared some of the bags had been taken. They called the company and then notified the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which sent deputies to the scene to take a report and investigate. At their request, the drivers counted the bags and determined that 24 of the 73 bags had been taken, mostly from the front of the trailer, harder to reach from the rear. Brink's would later claim that 22 were taken.
Investigation
The drivers told deputies about the events of the night, but their statements were unclear and inconsistent. They said they left San Mateo at midnight, which would mean Motley drove the truck at an average speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). However, in later statements, they said they had left at 8:25 p.m. Motley claimed he left Beaty sleeping in the truck when he went to eat because he had not yet completed his required 10 hours of rest. If he had woken Beaty to stand guard, he would not have been allowed to continue driving to Pasadena. Beaty said he entered the sleeper area at 3:39 p.m. the day before, which would mean he had legally enough rest by the time Motley arrived at the Flying J lot, as Motley later admitted in a deposition. The drivers told deputies they believed they had been followed from San Mateo, but they did not see anyone doing so.
Deputies could not resolve another issue. Some bags had "LAX" written on them in addition to colored tags. After contacting the Brink's guard who packed the bags in San Mateo, Beaty confirmed that "LAX" meant the bags were meant for Los Angeles International Airport, not Pasadena. Beaty said the guard believed these bags were the ones the thieves targeted because they contained high-value items. A deputy noted that he was standing next to a bag with "LAX" on it at the time, but the matter was not further investigated.
The truck stop’s security cameras only show the fueling area, not the part of the lot where the truck was parked, so there was no direct video of the theft. The LACSD has other camera footage from the truck stop that may be relevant. Witnesses nearby said one man heard men speaking in a foreign language during the theft. He could not identify the language but said it was not Spanish, as he knew Spanish. The thieves took the broken lock with them but left the seal on the ground near the truck.
Months later, the Los Angeles Times reported that a bodycam recording showed a deputy stepping away from interviewing Beaty and Motley to take a phone call from his superior. He made sure they could not hear him before speaking. His superior then asked if he thought "they were totally victimized," at which point the recording stopped.
Eight months after the theft, police said they had searched some properties for records but did not provide more details. The FBI has joined the investigation but has not commented further.
Theories
Investigators said that the thieves followed the trucks from San Mateo and waited for a chance to steal the cargo, rather than taking it randomly from a parking lot. Beaty and Motley were carrying guns openly, which might have shown the thieves that the cargo was valuable. They and the deputies noticed that most stolen bags were near the front of the trailer, suggesting the thieves had specific items in mind, not just taking whatever was easiest to reach.
The speed of the theft also suggests a planned operation with multiple people, as one person likely could not have moved so many heavy bags in 27 minutes. Larry Lawton, a former thief, said the plan probably included steps to hide the stolen jewelry. Thieves would likely take the jewelry to people who could use chemicals to separate stones and metal, melt the metal for resale, and remove identifying marks like the ten-digit numbers etched on stones by the Gemological Institute of America (GIA). The jewelry could then be sent to places like Antwerp, New York, or Miami to be sold quickly.
Other sources said the thieves might wait until public interest in the case decreases before returning the jewelry to the market. Some people say the stolen items may have been sent to Israel.
Because the thieves had detailed information about the truck’s journey and the company’s plans, some people believe the theft was an inside job. One jeweler learned about the theft only after seeing that their items were missing from a shipment in Pasadena. The local Brink’s office did not inform them about the theft, and the company only sent a vague letter about a “loss incident” two days later. Another jeweler, Jean Malki, said it was strange that the thieves knew the truck’s route in advance. Motley also told deputies that some jewelers might have used the same information to commit insurance fraud.
Indictments
In June 2025, federal prosecutors in the Central District of California announced that they had obtained formal charges against seven men from the Los Angeles area. One of the men was already in prison in Arizona for a separate burglary charge. The men were accused of working together to steal items from trucks that traveled across state lines or internationally. Five of them also faced additional charges related to theft and conspiracy under the Hobbs Act. Two of the men were arrested and appeared in court the same day the charges were announced. During searches of their homes, some of the stolen jewelry was found.
The charges, reviewed by The Los Angeles Times, state that before the Brinks theft, the men had previously stolen electronics from delivery trucks in Fontana and Ontario, California. They used similar methods to those used in the Brinks theft: some followed the trucks in personal vehicles and called others when the truck stopped at a parking lot. While others watched for police, a third group broke into the truck and stole expensive electronic devices. The stolen items were later sold to fences in East Los Angeles, and the money was divided among the group.
After the Brinks theft, the men went to East Hollywood. They may not have immediately realized how valuable the stolen items were. In the weeks that followed, several turned off their phones. A lawyer for the jewelry company stated that the indictment confirms the company’s claims that the men operated a serious criminal group that took advantage of weaknesses in Brink’s security measures. Brink’s thanked law enforcement for their work in the case.
Litigation
Brink's determined the value of the stolen jewelry to be $8.7 million using information provided by jewelers on forms they or their representatives signed and submitted to the carrier for insurance purposes. According to its contracts with the jewelers, Brink's agreed to reimburse them for the full declared value. However, media reports later claimed the jewelry was worth far more, with some estimates reaching $100 million. In early August, Brink's filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York, accusing the jewelers of breaking their contract and seeking to limit the payment to the jewelry’s declared value.
In court documents, Brink's described the theft as follows: one of its drivers parked a trailer containing millions of dollars in jewelry, secured only by a padlock, in a dark area of a remote truck stop parking lot while eating. The other driver slept in the truck cab. The jewelers, believing this security measure was inadequate, filed a separate lawsuit in state court in Los Angeles two weeks later, claiming the company was negligent and seeking $200 million in damages.
A key issue in both lawsuits was that, as Brink's suggested, the jewelers often reported lower values for their merchandise on forms submitted to the company. During depositions, several jewelers admitted they intentionally undervalued their items. Brink's stated that one jeweler, Malki, described this practice as a “business decision,” explaining that many jewelers were small businesses or sole proprietorships unable to pay higher insurance costs if accurate valuations were used. A Brink's spokesperson said the company would have taken stronger security measures if the jewelers had provided accurate transport values. The jewelers’ lawyer then asked how valuable the goods would need to be for Brink's to consider them worth securing properly.
Three of the 14 jewelers who sued Brink's reached settlements for undisclosed amounts. Some also sued Flying J’s parent company, arguing that the truck stop should have been more security-conscious due to past thefts at the location over the previous six years. In February 2024, a judge ruled in favor of Flying J’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that the previous thefts were not similar enough to the Brink's theft for Flying J to have reasonably expected it. The judge gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint after their lawyer learned of another incident where a driver found his truck door open and people near the back of the vehicle.
Impact
The jewelers who filed a lawsuit against Brink's were among those who suffered the greatest losses from the theft. Many had collected their items over 40 years, including some very valuable pieces. Some operators lost their entire businesses. For those who continue in the jewelry trade, other challenges remain. Brink's is not transporting their goods while the legal case is ongoing, and its strong position in the secure transportation industry has made other jewelers who are not involved in the lawsuit hesitant to speak against the company publicly. Some jewelry manufacturers who sell to them now require payment upfront instead of allowing payment later. Malki noted that his displays after the theft had fewer items than before.