Republic Bank held liable in safety deposit box heist

REPUBLIC Bank Ltd (RBL) has been found liable for a break-in at its Couva branch in 2022 which led to the theft of a pensioner’s valuables from a safety deposit box.

“I find that the defendant’s security systems fell short and below the required standard and the claimant is entitled to judgment,” Justice Carol Gobin held in a judgment on October 7.

Curtis Mathura's attorneys are expected to present the court with submissions on the quantum of damages. In his lawsuit, in January 2023, he identified $297,694 in jewellery and cash stored in the safety deposit box.

Mathura was represented by attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh and Stefan Ramkissoon, while Kerwyn Garcia, SC, Tonya Rowley and Hillary Muddeen represented RBL.

Mathura was one of the scores of customers who lost jewellery and family heirlooms when RBL’s Couva branch was broken into during a long holiday weekend in May 2022.

Between May 27 and 30, the bank’s branch at Southern Main Road, Couva, was broken into. Criminals smashed through a concrete wall and gained access to the vault, which contained safety deposit boxes and records belonging to the bank.

The bank said at the time of the incident, CCTV cameras focused on the cash vault, but not the safety deposit boxes vault.

This was deliberate to ensure customer confidentiality and privacy, the bank’s security manager said in his evidence.

His evidence was that the bank had an intrusion detection system (IDS) monitored overnight. The IDS comprises an alarm system with magnetic contacts for doors and windows, motion sensors, vibration sensors, glass-break sensors and a communication system that transmits messages from the branch to a central monitoring station.

That weekend, the alarm system was armed on May 27 at 6.55 pm and the branch was opened the next day afternoon to service the automated banking machines. RBL maintained the system remained armed until May 31.

The judge said the bank’s evidence “confirmed that these measures notwithstanding, a group of intruders shockingly managed to conduct a four-hour operation between 1.02 am and 5.04 am, using heavy equipment, drilling walls, crawling on the ground avoiding cameras and sensors to carry out a well-planned and well-executed heist, breaking several security boxes and managed to do so undetected.

“All of this took place in the vicinity of a police station.”

She said the evidence raised an “obvious and serious question as to whether the systems were sufficient or if some or more components failed.

“It came down to whether in the circumstances of this case, the measures provided were adequate and it is not an answer to say that the system did not fail, rather that the thieves succeeded.

“If the system allowed such a brazen enterprise, could the defendant be said to have discharged its contractual obligation to take reasonable care?”

Gobin said the evidence from the bank’s security manager established that the vibration sensors failed to pick up “unusually significant vibrations.”

She said he was reluctant to say they malfunctioned, surmising it had something to do with their positioning.

“I am not persuaded that they may not have malfunctioned but the explanation of placement did not negate a finding that the defendant had breached its duty of care. “It was not enough to simply instal vibration sensors if they were not located close enough to perimeter walls and especially on the wall to the rear of the building which afforded the perfect entry point away from public view.

“It is safe to say that in installing vibration sensors the bank would not be contemplating unauthorised entry via main established doors leading in and out of the bank.”

She said these motion sensors failed to pick up the movements of at least three people in the bank for three hours.

“These were persons who were carrying heavy equipment. Even if they were crawling on the ground, the failure to trigger the alarm was not sufficiently explained.

“The absence of live monitoring in the context of what might be considered reasonable in the current environment of Trinidadand Tobago and at the time of the heist pointed to a failure to provide adequate security in the circumstances.

“Live monitoring is now a fairly common feature of security measures adopted by ordinary homeowners even at significant cost,” she said, adding that this has now become necessary.

“What the defendant has sought to label ‘monitoring’ is in fact response by third-party providers to the triggering of an alarm. Monitoring and response features are not the same.

“That no alarm was triggered for four hours during the invasion has not been satisfactorily explained but in any case, the failure establishes that the system fell below a reasonable standard of care.”

Gobin said the failure to provide vibration and motion sensors in the vault was “inexcusable.”

She also rejected the bank’s evidence there were no sensors in the vault because they did not have electrical conduits, but were put in the general area to pick up movement.

“Clearly, from the events that led to this litigation, placing sensors in an area outside the vault proved ineffective.

“The explanation of not having cameras for privacy could not be considered reasonable if cameras were installed and activated after closure.”

She also said she attached no weight to the bank’s evidence that its security measures were standard in the industry.