2006 EQUIPMENT THEFT REPORT - ner.net

2006

EQU

IPM

ENT

THEF

T RE

PORT

NATIONAL EQUIPMENT REGISTER

CONTENTS

Letter from Executive Director FBI-LEEDA 4

Introduction 5

Theft Statistics

Frequency of Theft by State 6

Type of Theft Locations 7

Type of Equipment Stolen 8

Theft Compared to Other Types of Loss 9

Theft by Manufacturer 10

Age of Stolen Equipment 10

Profile of Thieves 11

The Cost of Equipment Theft 11

Recovery Statistics

Recovery Rates 12

Recovery Locations 13

Types of Equipment Recovered 14

Recovery by Manufacturer 14

NER– By The Numbers 15

Final NotesSummary 16Conclusion 16Appendix A – 2006 Case Studies 17

NATIONAL EQUIPMENT REGISTER 3

108 West 39th Street, Suite 506New York, NY 10018212.297.1805www.NERusa.comwww.stopequipmenttheft.cominfo@NERusa.com

OUR PURPOSEBecause equipment theft is widespread and costly for equipment owners and their insurers the National Equipment Register iscommitted to providing services that will make it straightforward forpolice to quickly identify any type of equipment at any time of dayand to help anyone buying used equipment to avoid purchasingstolen equipment. This increases the likelihood of recovery andarrest, decreases thieves’ motivation to steal and helps equipmentowners and insurers reduce the costs associated with theft.

It is only through partnerships with law enforcement, manufacturers,other security service providers, equipment owners and their insurers that this can be achieved.

NATIONAL EQUIPMENT REGISTER



OverviewThis report is the National EquipmentRegister’s (NER) fourth annual report onequipment theft in the United States. It isprimarily based upon data from NER’sdatabase of over 82,000 thefts ofconstruction and farm equipment andinformation from the Insurance ServicesOffice (ISO). Similar reports will bepublished every January to help tracktrends and utilize the growing volume ofdata recorded by NER.

AimThe aim of this study is to provideequipment owners, insurance companiesand law enforcement with information tohelp direct theft prevention andinvestigation resources in the most effectivemanner. To achieve this, the statistics areput into context through footnotes, analysisand conclusions that relate to both theprotection and investigation of heavyequipment.

The report seeks to answer the question:

“Who steals how much of what, fromwhere, how, why and where does it go?”

Presentation andAnalysis Each set of data is presented eithergraphically or in tables to allow easycomparison and to highlight trends. Notesexplain data sources and gatheringtechniques. The analyses discuss therelative importance of the factors thataffect each set of results and furthercomment may be given where a particularaction or response is suggested by the data.

Data SourcesSince 2001 NER has been developingdatabases for recording heavy equipmenttheft and ownership data that now providean unparalleled volume and detail of datathrough which equipment theft trends canbe analyzed. Broader insurance industrytrends are also indicated from ISO’s data.

Earlier reports focused primarily oninsured losses as the majority of equipmentinsurers were by then participating in theNER program. A full list of NER membercompanies is on page 15. An importantdevelopment in 2005 was the participationof the equipment rental industry, wheremany non-insured losses occur. NER isnow capturing loss data from the largestrental fleets in North America andhundreds of smaller fleets through apartnership with the American RentalAssociation (ARA).

Some data, such as the underlying reasonsfor the high level of theft, cannot bemeasured statistically but can be deducedfrom trends and the daily contact that NERstaff have with theft victims, insurers andlaw enforcement.

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

2006

1. TX2. CA3. FL4. NC5. GA6. AR7. MO8. IL9. OK10. PA

Notes:1. Although thefts were reported to NERfrom every state, the top 5 statesaccounted for 38% of the total number ofthefts in 2006. In 2005 the top 5 statesaccounted for 39% of all thefts.

2. The table is based on 4,858 theftreports submitted to NER in 2006.

Analysis:1. The overriding factor is the amount of ‘targets’ available in each state.Theft levels closely follow the amount of equipment in a particular area – i.e.the states with the highest volume ofconstruction and agriculture have thehighest number of thefts.

2. The other factor is the number andlevel of activity of equipment thieves inany area. Areas with a higherconcentration of equipment and morepotential buyers of [stolen] usedequipment are more likely to encouragethe development of more organized theftrings. This is reflected in higher lossratios for insurers in certain areas.

Conclusion:Theft rates closely follow equipmentvolume – where there is more equipment,there is more theft. Sometimes theft ‘hotspots’ emerge when an organized groupof thieves and fences are working in aparticular area. When these groups aredetected and closed down a noticeabledrop in theft rates is sometimes seen such as the Case Studies in Appendix A.


2005 20041. TX TX2. CA NC3. FL CA4. MO FL5. SC PA6. NC GA7. GA IL8. TN MO9. IN SC10. OK IN

The top 5 statesaccount for 38%of all thefts.

The top 10states accountfor 57 % of allthefts.

Theft statistics primarily tell us about what is being stolen from where. Who stealsequipment, how and why can be deduced through information gained duringinvestigations such as those detailed in Appendix A.

Frequency of Theft by State

TH

EF

T S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

Note:Source: ISO Inland Marine Circular,Contractors Equipment, All Classes.

Analysis:These figures depend upon where theequipment spends most of its time and thedifferent levels of security at each type oflocation. Equipment spends most of itstime being operated on ‘Others’ Premises’such as worksites that are also likely tohave much lower levels of physical securitythan an ‘Insured’s Premises’ which is moreoften a fenced storage facility.

Comment:It is not enough to focus solely on thesecurity of premises and worksites – inmany instances a worksite cannot beadequately secured. As well as worksites,the equipment itself should be made moresecure through the use of locks andimmobilizers and through the deterrence of unique paint schemes and marking andregistration programs such as HELPtechand HELPtechDNA.


Type of Theft Locations The graph below compares insured losses by the type of location of the theft:

TH

EF

T S

TA

TIS

TIC

S


Notes:1. Based on 4,858 theft reports submitted toNER in 2006.

2. The top 5 types of equipment account for 80% of all losses. In 2005 the top 5represented 78% of all thefts.

3. ‘Tractor’ is a broad category, includingcompact, utility and agricultural tractors.‘Skid steer loader’ is really a subtype ofloader but has been broken out here due to the high number of losses in this subtype. ‘Loader’ includes wheel loaders,tracked loaders and landscape loaders.

4. Over 50 types of equipment make up‘Other’ such as graders, wood chippers,rollers and commercial mowers.

5. Does not include smaller items such ashand tools.

Analysis:1. The two key factors in the type ofequipment most likely to be stolen are valueand mobility - the higher the value of an itemand the easier it is to transport, the greaterthe chance of theft. Value is the primaryfactor until an item becomes too large tomove on a small trailer – e.g. mechanicalcranes are very valuable but are seldom, ifever, stolen as they are difficult to move.

2. Another factor to consider is the amountof each type of equipment in circulation.For example, it is estimated that skid steerloaders accounted for over 30% of newconstruction equipment sold in the US inthe last 5 years.

3. While dozers and wheel loaders are themost valuable equipment in the ‘top 10’,tractors, backhoes and skid steers are themost easily transported. When theft ismeasured by value rather than frequency,generators fall below loaders, excavators and dozers.

4. Of very high value equipment, the only type that is reported stolen with anyfrequency are wheeled machines such aswheel loaders.

Comment:Equipment owners should look at themobility of equipment as well as value when looking at which equipment to focussecurity efforts on.

Type of Equipment Stolen

TH

EF

T S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

Theft Compared to Other Types of Loss

Notes:1. Source: ISO Inland Marine Circular,Contractors Equipment, All Classes.

2. Other includes claims involvingwindstorms, hail, water damage, flood,volcanic action and earthquake.

3. These figures are based on frequency, notvalue. When measured by value theft is stillthe greatest type of loss but by a lessermargin.

Comment:Although theft is the most frequent type ofloss it is also the risk that risk managementcan have the greatest effect on. This meansthat there is a great difference in the level ofrisk between an equipment owner that takesbasic precautions and one that does not.

There are simple steps that equipmentowners can take to reduce the likelihood oftheft and improve the chances of recovery.Where such steps are cost effective and canbe measured, insurers and managers shoulduse incentives to encourage their use.

Risk management advice is available free ofcharge to NER member insurers and theirpolicyholders in NER’s 50 page TheftPrevention Guide and at the FBI-LEEDA/NER Regional Equipment TheftSummits (details at www.NERusa.com).


TH

EF

T S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

Age of StolenEquipmentEquipment produced in the last 3 yearsaccounted for 48 % of thefts reported toNER in 2006. The last ten years ofproduction also accounted for the top 10machine stolen as measured by year ofmanufacture.

1. 2005 21%

2. 2004 16%

3. 2006 11%

4. 2000 10%

5. 2003 8%

6. 2001 7%

7. 1998 5%

8. 2002 5%

9. 1999 4%

10. 1997 3%

Analysis:The newer a piece of equipment, the morelikely it is to be stolen. If given the choicebetween two similar machines that are justas easy to steal, a thief will choose thenewer, more valuable machine.

This is in contrast to the trend in auto theftwhere older models account for more stolencars. This is because newer cars carry moresophisticated anti-theft technology whereasequipment design is still driven primarily byproductivity such as the need for multipleoperators to be able to use a single machine.


Notes:1. 2006 would be top(22%) if pro-rated for the number ofmonths that theaverage 2006 modelwas ‘available’ to bestolen.

2. Equipment issometimes consideredby a theft victim to be manufactured inthe year that it waspurchased rather thanthe year in which itwas actually made.

Theft by ManufacturerThe most common makes of equipmentreported stolen to NER in 2006 were:

1. John Deere 2. Caterpillar 3. Bobcat4. Kubota 5. Case 6. New Holland 7. Multiquip 8. Ditch Witch 9. Massey Fergusson

10. Komatsu

Analysis:1. As all makes of off-road equipmenthave similar levels of equipment securitythis list is primarily an indication of whichmanufacturers make the most compactequipment (i.e. those types featured infigure 2) and does not necessarily followmarket share for all types of equipment.

2. If two pieces of equipment are equallyeasy to steal a thief is likely to steal themore valuable machine. This will dependprimarily on age and condition but mayalso depend upon the brand.

3. As manufacturers start to add securityfeatures as standard (e.g. Kubota KX080-3) this will become a factor in futurereports.

TH

EF

T S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

Profile of ThievesWhile there are no statistics available thatcan be used to analyze this importantquestion, information from investigationssuch as the case studies in Appendix Aindicate that thieves have good knowledgeof equipment and the weaknesses inphysical security.

In some cases these are criminals wholearn about equipment or who pay those inthe business for help and information. Inother cases the thieves are already familiarwith equipment and see an opportunity tomake more money in stealing equipmentto ‘supplement’ their existing income.Having stolen and sold one machine andfound how low risk it is, they continue.This is reflected through most arrestsleading to multiple recoveries.

The Cost of Equipment TheftAt present, there is no single place whereevery loss is recorded so existing figuresmust be used to make assumptions and todevelop trends. Estimates of the totalvalue of equipment stolen annually rangebetween $300 million and $1 billion.

Note: Statistics do not include losses frombusiness interruption such as short-termrental costs, project delay penalties andwasted workforce and management time.

Analysis:The high levels of equipment theft are due to:• the high value of heavy equipment• the ease with which equipment can be

stolen due to poor equipment and sitesecurity

• the ease with which stolen equipmentcan be sold in the used equipmentmarket

• low risk of detection and arrest forthieves

• low penalties if prosecuted and convicted


TH

EF

T S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

Recovery RatesAn analysis of thefts reported to ISO byinsurers since 1990 showed 6.5% markedas recovered. Past losses from over 300NER member companies reflect resultsboth higher and lower than this but not byany significant margin.

Notes: 1. The true recovery rate may be higher assome pieces of equipment will have beenrecovered but not marked as recovered.

2. The true recovery rate may be lower asmany thefts are not reported and these arethe losses that are less likely to berecovered.

Analysis: The low recovery rate is due to factorssuch as:

• the delay in theft discovery and reporting

• inaccurate or non-existent owner records

• the lack of pre-purchase checks in theused equipment market

• limited resources that law enforcementcan dedicate to equipment investigations

• the difficulty of equipment investigationsdue to the complexities in equipmentnumbering systems

• the limited amount and inaccuracies ofequipment information in lawenforcement systems

CommentThe area that needs the most improvementand that is the easiest to have a quickimpact upon is to make accurateinformation about equipment ownershipavailable to law enforcement 24 hours aday.

The minimum requirement is forequipment owners to keep accurate lists ofequipment with PIN/serial numbers and toreport this to law enforcement, theirinsurer and NER as soon as a theft isdiscovered.

Owners may also consider registering theirfull fleet with NER so that this informationis available to law enforcement 24 hours aday and can be used to identify theequipment when being moved by thievesat weekends or at night – before the theftis discovered.


Low recovery rates make it difficult to draw concrete conclusions from an analysis ofrecovery statistics alone but by incorporating information acquired during investigations,such as those described in Appendix A, some conclusions may be made as to how equipmentis stolen, where it goes and who steals it.

As little as10% ofstolenequipmentis everrecovered.

RE

CO

VE

RY

STA

TIS

TIC

S

Notes: 1. In 2006, most machines were recoveredin the same state in which they were stolen.Of those recovered in another state, fewmoved beyond the neighboring state. Thegreatest distance between the theft andrecovery locations was a CAT D-4-C thatwas moved from CA to GA.

2. The bigger the state and the moredemand for equipment within that state, thelower the chance that the equipment willleave the state.

3. The longer the time from the theft, themore likely the equipment was to havemoved out of state and be in the possessionof a purchaser who seemed to have noknowledge of the theft.

4. It is important to note that these figuresare based on very low recovery rates andthe equipment that moves further is lesslikely to be recovered. When this is takeninto account the amount of equipmentmoving out of the state in which it wasstolen will be higher.

Analysis:1. While low recovery rates make itimpossible to provide a full picture of howand to where stolen equipment is moved,there are strong indications that due to thefew checks made in the used equipmentmarket, thieves are confident of not beingcaught and feel safe selling equipment ineven neighboring counties.

2. Recoveries made at ports and bordersdemonstrate that stolen equipment isexported, however the ease with whichstolen equipment can be sold within the USmakes the cost of export worthwhile onlyfor thieves who can raise higher pricesabroad.

Comment:It is important to act both locally (e.g.circulation of theft reports) and nationally(e.g. national databases) in the fight againstequipment theft.

A key component in the fight againstequipment theft must be to make it harderfor thieves to sell stolen equipment. Buyersof used equipment should be encouraged tocheck machines with NER before purchase.


2006

1. TX 2. CA3. TN4. CO5. AZ6. OK7. FL8. LA9. MI 10. PA

2005 2004

1. CA CA2. TX NC3. TN TX4. FL AZ5. MS NY6. MI MI7. SC TN8. AZ IN9. LA AL10. KS FL

The top 5states account for 47% of recoveries

The top 10 states account for 68

RE

CO

VE

RY

STA

TIS

TIC

S Recovery Locations In 2006 recoveries were made in 30 U.S. states by law enforcement with the assistanceof NER. The following states were the most active:

1. Bobcat2. Caterpillar3. Case4. John Deere5. New Holland6. Kubota7. MultiQuip8. Gehl9. Ditch Witch10. Ingersoll Rand

Notes:1. Does not include ‘related’ recoverieswhere an NER assisted recovery lead tofurther recoveries.

2. Every recovery had some kind ofindicator such as equipment in an unusuallocation, type or timing of transport, missingdecals, altered paint or missingidentification plates.

3. The top five types of equipmentrecovered accounted for 78% of allrecoveries.

Analysis:The types of equipment most oftenrecovered closely mirror the types ofequipment most commonly stolen.


Note:The top five makes of equipment recovered accounted for 70% of all recoveries.

Analysis:The makes of equipment most often recovered closely mirrorthe makes of equipment most commonly stolen (see page 10).

Variations within this trend reflect a manufacturer’s abilityand willingness to provide data in support of investigations.

RE

CO

VE

RY

STA

TIS

TIC

STypes of Equipment Recovered Recoveries made by law enforcement with the assistance of NER in 2006 weremade up of the following types of equipment:

Recoveries by ManufacturerThe following makes of equipment were most often recovered by law enforcementin 2006 with assistance from NER:

14,836,612 number of ownership records

11,587,927 value of items recovered (in $) by law enforcement with the help of NER (note 1)

120,000 number of NER equipment ID guides distributed to law enforcement

82,350 number of theft reports

9,699 number of fleets with equipment registered with NER

4,858 number of theft reports submitted to NER in 2006

4,229 number of registered law enforcement users

2,868 number of rental stores or branches using NER’s services

1,950 number of officers attending NER equipment ID training classes in 2006

981 number of attendees at NER’s Regional Equipment Theft Summits

746 number of recoveries made by law enforcement with the help of NER

364 number of insurance companies participating in the NER program (note 2)

42 number of police training classes conducted by NER in 2006

16 number of states/provinces in which NER conducted training in 2006

8 number of ‘top 10’ construction equipment insurance companies as NER clients

5 number of ‘top 10’ equipment rental companies as NER clients (note 3)

Notes:1. Does not include ‘related’ recoverieswhere an NER assisted recovery lead tofurther recoveries.

2. NER member insurers come from thefollowing insurance groups: ACE USA,AIG, American Resources, ARAInsurance Services, Atlantic Mutual,Berkley Mid-Atlantic, Chubb, Cincinnati,CNA, Deans & Homer, FCCI, Everest,Fireman’s Fund, Frankenmuth Mutual,General Casualty, Grinnell Mutual,

Hanover, Harleysville, Kemper, NorthCarolina Farm Bureau, Ohio Mutual,OneBeacon, Praetorian, Rue Insurance,Travelers, State Auto, The Hartford,Unitrin, US Liability, WNC First, XLInsurance and Zurich US. Most otherequipment insurers work with NER on anad hoc basis.

3. Dropped from 6 to 5 due to Sunbelt andNationsRent merger.


NER BY THE NUMBERSThe following numbers give a snapshot of NER’s operations as of December 31, 2006:

Equipment owners and insurersshould focus risk management effortson high value equipment that can beeasily transported.

Equipment security and worksite securityare both important factors but becauseequipment is often used in areas with nophysical security it is most important toimprove the physical security ofequipment.

The area that needs the mostimprovement and that is the easiest tohave an impact upon is in making accurateinformation available to law enforcement24 hours a day.

Officers investigating equipment theftshould focus on the types of equipmentmost often stolen and look for ‘red flags’such as location, type of transport, missingdecals, altered paint, and particularly,missing identification plates.


Although complete statistics do notexist, it is clear from those that do thatequipment theft is a serious problem.

Estimates of the total value of equipmentstolen annually range between $300million and $1 billion. These statistics donot include losses from businessinterruption such as short-term rentalcosts, project delay penalties and wastedworkforce and management time. Theft isa greater problem than any other type ofequipment risk.

Geographically, equipment theft levelsclosely follow the amount of equipment ina particular area - the states with thehighest volume of construction andagriculture have the highest number ofthefts.

The type of equipment that is most oftenstolen is linked to the mobility and valueof equipment. Most thefts are fromworksites that may be difficult orimpossible to secure. Given two similartypes of machine a thief will steal thenewest because it is more valuable and, incontrast to cars, there is little difference inequipment security between a newmachine and one made five years ago.

As little as 10% of stolen equipment isrecovered. Recovery locations and typesof equipment recovered closely mirrorlocations and the types most often stolen.

SUMMARY

CONCLUSION

An equipment industry contactcalled NER after learning that aBobcat T-190 skid steer loaderlisted for sale on eBay maybelong to a national rentalcompany. Knowing that therental company in question hastheir complete inventory

registered on the NER database, the caller suggestedNER investigate.

NER located the eBay listing for this unit - for sale inSuffern, NY - and using the Product IdentificationNumber (PIN) for the posted machine, searched internaldatabases. An ownership record was found which listedthe skid steer loader as part of the rental company’s fleet,as well as a theft report submitted to NER by an insurancecompany. NER immediately contacted the Suffern, NYPolice Department and explained the situation. As locallaw enforcement involvement was needed for thisinvestigation to proceed, a Suffern P.D. detective went tothe sale location and upon examining the machine,

discovered that the public PIN plate had been removed.NER provided the detective with advice on alternate waysto identify the skid steer loader and a PIN was ultimatelyfound. As this PIN matched the one listed on NER’s theftreport, the detective had cause to continue hisinvestigation. NER provided the detective with contactinformation for the Raleigh, NC Police Department, whotook the original theft report, and upon calling he learnedthat there was no record of this skid steer loader everbeing recovered. Based on these events, the loader wasseized, marked as recovered and impounded.

The rental company advised that they had billed therenter for the value of this machine,however as they had not yet receivedcompensation they arranged toretrieve the machine. The renterhad submitted a claim to his insurerto cover this expense, however therecovery occurred before a checkwas issued - saving the insurer theentire value of a claim.

Inspector Garza, with the United States Customs &Border Protection Agency, was recently reviewing theexport documentation for a hauler attempting totransport a 2000 Case 580 Super L backhoe loader acrossthe border in Laredo, Texas when he noticed that thepaperwork was not in line with accepted procedures.

In order to determine if the backhoe hadbeen reported stolen, Inspector Garzaobtained the Product IdentificationNumber (PIN) from the machine’s publicPIN plate and searched local and nationalpolice databases. No matching theftreports could be found, however asInspector Garza was still suspicious, he

contacted NER for any additional information beforeletting the backhoe cross the border. NER searchedinternal databases using the Product Identification

Number (PIN) provided and foundan ownership record for the lastknown owner of the backhoe whohad purchased the backhoe in 2003.

The owner was contacted andconfirmed that the backhoe was his, however there was noreason that it should be on the way to Mexico. After thiscontact, the owner checked his inventory and only thendiscovered that the backhoe had been stolen.

Based on the information obtained, the export of thisbackhoe was halted and the unit seized. InspectorGarza’s attention to detail and perseverance in this caseprevented a stolen machine from crossing into Mexico,allowed for the return of stolen property to the rightfulowner and saved insurance claim costs had the ownerfiled a theft claim with his insurer.


APPENDIX A – RECOVERY CASE STUDIESThe following cases studies help illustrate some of the techniques used by equipment thievesand provide useful lessons for equipment owners, insurers and law enforcement. They alsohelp highlight some of the successes that law enforcement has had in 2006.

CUSTOMS INSPECTOR STOPS STOLEN BACKHOE AT BORDER

eBay LISTING LEADS TO N.Y. RECOVERY OF STOLEN N.C. BOBCAT

To ensure the greatest chance ofrecovering heavy equipment stolen in

the Dallas, TX area, Detective Anayaof the Dallas Police Departmentprovided a number of recent theftreports to NER for review, upload intoNER’s national theft database and to

run against other NER data. Among these open caseswas the theft of a 1981 Caterpillar 953 tracked loader.When NER ran the Product Identification Number(PIN) of the loader against its sales and ownershiprecords a match was made against a record that indicateda sale date AFTER the given date of theft and for a

different owner than that listed on the theft report.NER contacted Detective Anaya and advised that NERmay have determined the whereabouts of this stolenloader and provided him with the contact details for theoriginal victim as well as the possible present possessoras indicated by the sales record. An investigation wasinitiated and several days later, Detective Anaya advisedthat the information had led him to the missing loaderwhich was seized as stolen property. The original theftvictim was contacted and advised that they had settled atheft claim with their insurance company. NERcontacted the insurance company involved and planswere made to salvage the recovered unit.

While looking at a Caterpillar CB334D Roller, Lee Boy8000T Paver and an MUV trailer being offered for sale inBedford Park, IL a prospective buyer noted that theProduct Identification Number (PIN) plates had beenremoved from all three units. The buyer declined the

purchase and alerted the DuPage County,IL Sheriff’s Office.

Knowing that another paving company inHindsdale, IL had suffered the theft ofsimilar equipment only weeks earlier,DuPage detectives - joined by the Bedford

Park, IL P.D. and the DuPage County AutoTheft Task Force (BATTLE) - obtained permission toexamine these and other pieces of equipment beingstored at an area yard. Among the machines at the scene,

the trailer, paver and roller being offered for sale wereidentified as the ones stolen from the Hindsdale pavingcompany.

A Case 9007-B excavator with missing PIN plates wasalso found, however as no theft reports were found onpolice computers once this unit’s PIN was located,Inspector Frank Moore with the DuPage County AutoTheft task Force called NER for assistance. NERadvised that this excavator appeared to have been stolenfrom an electrical company in Chicago during 2005. Thiscompany was contacted and confirmed that they hadsuffered the theft of this machine as well as a Dyna Weldtrailer, which after further investigation was also found atthis same yard. Bobcat T300 and 863 skid steer loaderswere also recovered at the scene.

In October 2006, members of the Tri-County Auto TheftTask Force (TCAT) of Illinois - a multi-jurisdictional taskforce comprised of the Illinois State Police and officersfrom sheriff’s departments in Will, Kankakee and Grundycounties as well as from the Joliet, Bolingbrook andRomeoville police departments - received informationregarding the potential whereabouts of several pieces ofstolen construction equipment. After an initialinvestigation by Investigator Jim Akers, TCAT generatedenough information to identify the suspects who, onceapproached, agreed to cooperate in an ongoinginvestigation. Using the information provided by thesesuspects, TCAT learned of the possible location of severaladditional pieces of stolen equipment.

TCAT began hunting down these pieces, many of whichhad Product Identification Number (PIN) plates that

were altered or obscured, and in some cases removed.By utilizing internal resources and contactingNER for assistance, TCAT was able to identifythe pieces found. In some cases, matchingtheft reports were found on national or statepolice computer systems and in others,information provided by NER led to theidentification of the last known owner, victim or insurer. As a result of this investigation,TCAT recovered fifteen pieces of stolen equipment valued at just over $500,000.00, including:

• Bobcat skid steer loaders• Caterpillar tracked / wheeled skid steer loaders • Case skid steer loaders• Caterpillar excavators• Case backhoe loaders • New Holland skid steer loaders

18

DETECTIVE RECOVERS TRACKED LOADER BY REPORTING THEFT

ILLINOIS AUTO THEFT UNIT RECOVERS 15 PIECES OF STOLEN EQUIPMENT

PROSPECTIVE BUYER REPORTS SUSPICIOUS MACHINE

Documents

2006 EQUIPMENT THEFT REPORT - ner.net