Brink’s Sued for $50,000 Reward in Theft Case

A woman who allegedly helped the FBI track down two men accused of receiving $6 million in stolen securities has filed suit against Brink’s Inc., charging that the armored car firm failed to pay a $50,000 reward to her in return for her help in the case.

Jean M. Malick of La Habra Heights charged in a suit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court that Brink’s defrauded her by promising her the reward in return for her cooperation.

Officials of Brink’s were unavailable for comment Thursday.

Malick’s suit, seeking the $50,000 reward and $5.1 million in damages, grew out of the January, 1983, disappearance of the securities--about half of which were negotiable--from the cargo hold of an airliner on a Portland to Los Angeles flight.

Two Arrested

Former Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven Richard Finch, 35, of La Habra and Stephen Gotter Bach, 40, an Inglewood bartender, were subsequently arrested. Finch pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of goods stolen from interstate commerce and was sentenced to six months in prison, while Bach was acquitted by a jury of the same charge, Assistant U.S. Atty. James Chalfant said.

Whittier attorney John Hardy, who represents Malick, said that Malick, who was a friend of Finch, was instrumental in breaking the case and the recovery of most of the securities.

“He (Finch) showed her $35,000 worth of bonds and told her they were stolen,” Hardy said.

The lawyer said his client informed the FBI and fully cooperated with the government.

“She gave testimony to the grand jury and she testified in Bach’s trial,” he said, adding, “She was the initial source of information . . . that enabled the FBI to act.”

Portion of Reward Paid

Chalfant said “a portion of the reward” was paid to another witness, Sean Parrish, who worked with Bach as a bartender. The prosecutor said he did not know how much money Parrish received. Parrish could not be reached for comment.

Chalfant said that because Malick’s suit is now in the courts, he could not comment on the relative merits of the testimony of Malick and Parrish in terms of strengthening the government’s case.