IBIS Corporation Trucking Cargo Security
Drivers Making Unauthorized Deliveries:
Reason for Investigation: Fuel tankers driving the length of a Central African country were often 40% to 50% short on their loads. Drivers and escorts blamed hijacks by terrorists and bandits. GPS systems installed by the company were being shut off or destroyed.
Methodology: IBIS installed covert GPS systems and monitored the trucks in real time. An IBIS rapid response unit was close by with government anti-terrorist police to respond if the trucks were stopped by insurgents.
Results: It developed that there were no insurgents, terrorists or bandits. The drivers were in collusion with fuel thieves. The drivers were detouring to certain recreational establishments, where they would be given liquor, drugs, female companionship and money. While they were being entertained, the thieves would pump fuel into waiting tanks. The drivers and the thieves were arrested and all received long prison terms. Fuel thefts dropped to zero.
Theft of a Trailer from a Drop Yard:
Reason for investigation: An very high-value trailer load was stolen from a trucking company drop yard. The yard operators then sued the security company who had a security guard on duty when the theft occurred. The litigation and negotiation process had been going on for several years with no end in sight. All the parties wanted a quick resolution. The parties and their insurers tasked IBIS with providing a professional opinion as to the merits of the case.
Methodology: IBIS investigators carefully examined the yard, the security standing orders, interviewed the yard manager, the guards and drivers. The security cameras were old, the rarely changed tape useless and the yard lighting very poor. We examined the security reports and patrol routes and the yard logs and then ran several simulations of the theft with timelines.
Results: IBIS determined the length of time it would take to remove the trailer, where security patrolled and other traffic in and out of the yard. The security standing orders were ”canned’, obsolete, did not reflect the current patrol routes and were insufficient to observe or deter theft. The guards were trying to do good jobs but had no supervision or training. The yard operators had ignored numerous recommendations to install working video and lighting. They gave the guard company so many contradictory instructions that it was impossible to follow them. The yard manager was a chronic petty thief but this was not related to the trailer loss.
IBIS determined that there was liability on both sides. The security company, although unhappy they were partially liable, accepted IBIS opinion. The yard operators admitted the opinion was true and implemented all IBIS recommendations. Based on IBIS opinion, the parties settled the case on a 50-50 basis.