Bricks and Minifigs accused of theft of over $200,000 dollars worth of Lego sets

2026-05-31T16:54:56Z

Graceful5038: /* American Fork Police Department Response */

{{Incomplete}}
{{Tone}}
{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Bricks and Minifigs
|StartDate=2026
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Lego
|Product=Lego
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Lego Resale
|Description=Bricks and Minifigs corporate were accused of an elaborate scheme to allegedly steal hundreds of unsold Lego sets , worth over $200,000 USD, from an elderly man.
}}

'''Bricks and Minifigs''' underwent an elaborate scheme to allegedly steal over $200000 dollars worth of Legos from an elderly man who wished to sell his large collection of Star Wars lego sets through them. Further inquiry from the owner / related parties resulted in threats of legal action, threats of being arrested, alleged extortion (demands for negative press to be removed in order to give back what was allegedly stolen) and more.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Reckless Ben |date=21 May 2026 |title=I tracked down the thief who stole $200,000 of LEGO |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU |url-status=live |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date=27 May 2026 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>

==Background==
The dispute began with what was supposed to be a straightforward consignment arrangement between a family and specialist LEGO retailer Bricks and Minifigs. For decades, Brian’s father had built an enormous and unusually valuable LEGO Star Wars collection, described as containing ''rare boxed sets, retired editions, and high‑value minifigures collected over many years'' . By the time the family decided to sell, the archive had grown into one of the largest private LEGO Star Wars collections ever assembled, with an estimated value of $200,000.

Believing that a specialist retailer would be the safest and most professional way to handle such a massive inventory, the family entered into a consignment agreement with a Bricks and Minifigs franchisee. Under this arrangement, the sets would remain the family’s property while the store sold them and kept an agreed‑upon percentage of each sale . The collection was so large that it filled the store wall‑to‑wall, requiring additional display space to accommodate the sheer volume of Star Wars merchandise .

However, the situation became unstable when the store entered a period of transition. The local franchise owner was preparing to leave the business, and corporate involvement led to a sudden takeover of the store, creating uncertainty about who was responsible for ongoing agreements and inventory management . According to the family, payment for the collection never arrived, even though the sets remained inside the business and were still being displayed as part of the store’s stock .

When Brian attempted to get answers, he found himself bounced between the store and corporate, with neither side providing clarity about the status of the agreement or the location of the collection. This lack of accountability deepened the conflict and raised concerns about whether the consigned items were being mishandled or withheld improperly . The family believed they had evidence showing the collection remained tied to the business even after the ownership change, but the dispute over the original agreement grew increasingly complicated and legally fraught .

Legal action was considered, but the family was warned by corporate leadership that pursuing a case against a major company would take years and cost tens of thousands of dollars, a daunting prospect considering Brian’s father was dealing with health issues that made the stress of the situation far heavier than a typical retail disagreement .

The conflict escalated dramatically once YouTubers began investigating the case, bringing widespread attention to the dispute. Online investigators examined contracts, inventory records, and conversations connected to the situation, drawing in collectors who had heard of the families story and the store. Attempts to contact staff and executives reportedly became tense, with claims of people being turned away and even police being called when questions were raised about the missing collection .

Collectors across the LEGO community are now watching closely, not only because of the extraordinary value of the missing sets but because the case raises broader concerns about trust, transparency, and accountability with regards to Bricks and Minifigs practices. As the IBTimes article notes<ref>{{Cite web |last=Longino |first=Crisnel |date=2026-05-27 |title=LEGO Theft Scandal Explodes as Family's £150K Star Wars Collection 'Vanishes' After Store Deal Turns Sour |url=https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lego-star-wars-collection-legal-dispute-1799151?utm_source=copilot.com |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-29 |website=International Business Times UK}}</ref>, the outcome feels “bigger than one family and one shop,” touching on the vulnerability of collectors who entrust their prized items to third‑party sellers .

==[Incident]==
{{Ph-I-I}}

==Bricks & Minifigs' Response==
Bricks & Minifigs posted two updates on their company site detailing their response to the videos being circulated online.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Team |first=Marketing |date=2026-05-21 |title=A NOTE TO OUR COMMUNITY ABOUT THE BRICKS & MINIFIGS® SALEM, OR STORE |url=https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/21/salem-oregon-bricks-and-minifigs-store-situation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260529143815/https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/21/salem-oregon-bricks-and-minifigs-store-situation/ |archive-date=2026-05-29 |access-date=2026-05-31 |website=Bricks & Minifigs Blog}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Team |first=Marketing |date=2026-05-28 |title=RESPONSE TO CUSTOMER INQUIRIES REGARDING BRICKS & MINIFIGS SALEM, OREGON: CLARITY AND RESOLUTION OF AN ISOLATED AND FORMER FRANCHISEE’S PRIVATE CIVIL DISPUTE |url=https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-minifigs-salem-oregon-clarity-and-resolution/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260530142716/https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-minifigs-salem-oregon-clarity-and-resolution/ |archive-date=2026-05-30 |access-date=2026-05-31 |website=Bricks & Minifigs Blog}}</ref>

===<u>A Note to Our Community about the Bricks & Minifigs® Salem, OR Store</u>===
by marketingteam | May 21, 2026 | Blog, Uncategorized

Over the past several months, many in our community have seen posts and videos regarding a dispute involving the former Bricks & Minifigs® location in Salem, Oregon. We understand the frustration and passion behind these discussions. Bricks & Minifigs is built on a community of collectors and families who care deeply about fairness, and that is a value we share.

'''To be absolutely clear: Bricks & Minifigs does not condone, tolerate, or participate in the exploitation of anyone, especially older adults or vulnerable members of our community.''' When a complex business dispute is reduced to edited social media clips, critical facts are often lost. While we will not litigate this online, we want to clarify the core situation.

====The Reality of the Consignment Claim====
Much of the online narrative centers on a private consignment arrangement allegedly made at the former Salem store. It is vital to understand that Bricks & Minifigs Corporate (BAM Franchising, Inc.) was not a party to this alleged agreement, nor were subsequent franchisees who took on the ownership of the Salem location.

Corporate did not sign, approve, or authorize this arrangement. In fact, such consignment deals are expressly prohibited under our franchise agreements to protect both the brand and the community.

That said, after ownership of the Salem store changed, we thoroughly documented and assessed current inventory. A few days later, we became aware of the previous arrangement, and compared our inventory assessment to the limited documentation provided by the consignor. It was clear the full list of inventory in his documentation was not located in the store. What items could be reasonably identified as allegedly belonging to the consignor was offered back to the consignor, but that offer was refused.

A deeper dive into the sales receipts uncovered that a significantly higher volume of the listed sets had sold over the course of the consignment deal prior to the store transition. The consignor also provided a written statement to a podcast that his collection was moved offsite for security reasons. Additional attempts to restore what we could with what was in our possession, was also declined, in writing.

BAM denies allegations that we “stole” this consignor’s collection, let alone a collection worth what has been claimed online. However, we remain willing to provide any appropriate assistance in recovering any and all portions of this collection or funds generated off of its sale to the original consignor and their family, through appropriate means.

====Seeking Facts Over Narratives====
Serious claims require serious evidence. We have repeatedly asked for the original documents and undoctored recordings that support these accusations. Selective social media posts and misleading investigative-style videos are not a substitute for the complete records and legal agreements that govern the rights of all involved parties.

If a legitimate claim exists, there are established legal and dispute-resolution processes to handle it fairly. Attempting to force a business outcome through public pressure, especially on unrelated stores and employees, is not a productive or fair path forward.

====Protecting Our Stores and Staff====
Franchisees operate independent businesses. While they must follow system standards, the franchisor does not automatically inherit responsibility for private, unauthorized agreements a local owner may enter into.

Our current network of BAM stores consists entirely of independent, local small business owners who had absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Our local franchise owners and their employees—many of whom are young people starting their first jobs—should not be targets of harassment for a dispute they did not create. We have seen a troubling rise in:

*Unauthorized filming and manufactured confrontations inside private stores.
*Direct threats and doxxing of local staff and their families.
*The disruption of the shopping experience for families and children.

Bricks & Minifigs stores are private businesses with a right to protect their premises. We will continue to support our owners in prohibiting disruptive conduct or harassment. This is not about silencing criticism; it is about ensuring a safe environment for everyone who walks through our doors.

====Moving Forward Together====
Our position remains simple: Bricks & Minifigs Corporate, nor any subsequent franchise owners, were party to the unauthorized Salem consignment agreement or any theft. Any legitimate claims should be resolved through the proper legal channels, where facts can be evaluated fairly.

We ask our fans and creators to consider the human impact of the content they share. Fairness is a two-way street; it requires looking at the full picture and respecting the rights of unrelated small business owners and their staff.

We love the LEGO® community and the creativity it fosters. Our mission is to bring joy and creativity to the world through all things LEGO. As such, we will continue to operate with integrity through the appropriate processes. We thank those who have waited for the facts before accepting rumors as truth, and who continue to support their local Bricks & Minifigs franchise stores.

Because this matter involves active legal issues, we will provide further updates only when it is appropriate and legally permissible to do so.

Thank you for your continued support of our local stores.

===<small>RESPONSE TO CUSTOMER INQUIRIES REGARDING BRICKS & MINIFIGS SALEM, OREGON: CLARITY AND RESOLUTION OF AN ISOLATED AND FORMER FRANCHISEE’S PRIVATE CIVIL DISPUTE</small>===
by marketingteam | May 28, 2026 | Blog, Uncategorized

When people think of Bricks & Minifigs®, they think of families and children, and a shared love for building something together. They don’t think of manufactured claims, legal battles, zealous online profiteers, viral mischaracterizations, sensationalization, and heated disagreements.

Seeing a father and his family at the center of a dispute regarding an unauthorized consignment is heartbreaking. We understand why people might initially react with suspicion online. The headline, although false, stating BAM® “stole an old man’s life savings” would make anyone curious. However, there is always more to the story.

While our initial responses focused on legal defenses that unfortunately take time and are ongoing, and because we as an entire brand are now forced to process a massive wave of online chaos, we feel the online community deserves a clear response to customer inquiries and the hopeful resolution of an isolated and former Franchisee’s private dispute.

We embrace self-reflection, but champion the unfiltered truth. We want to be entirely transparent about what happened and what we are doing to fix it so a situation like this never happens again.

At BAM Franchising, Inc. (the Franchisor for the Bricks & Minifigs brand), our community is built on trust, passion, and a shared love for creativity. Over the last several weeks, a deeply distressing and manufactured narrative has circulated online regarding our Salem, Oregon location. This article seeks to establish the truth of the situation publicly.

==Executive Summary==
The public narrative surrounding Bricks & Minifigs claims that corporate leadership and our new Salem franchisees knowingly “stole” a $100,000 to $200,000 LEGO® collection from an elderly collector and his family. '''This is not true.''' The actual origin of this dispute lies in an unauthorized, local consignment arrangement between an independent former franchisee of the Salem store and the Mansell family. When BAM corporate repossessed the store due to the former owner’s financial defaults and other breaches, BAM was unaware of any unauthorized and undisclosed consignment arrangement, and was not a party to such. In fact, the collection was not even located in the store based on our investigation. No credible evidence to the contrary has been found, including from Mr. Mansell.

However, we are hopeful the individuals involved in this private dispute can resolve such among themselves, which we support. Our goal is to ensure this grandfather and his family are not left “out” or penalized for a localized failure. After taking over the store, we discovered a small number of sets (valued between $2,000 and $5,000) that could possibly be related to Mr. Mansell’s collection based on the limited information we received. '''We offered to return these items to the Mansell family though BAM had no legal obligation to do so, but it was refused. However, BAM’s past offers to assist in resolving this third party dispute still stand today, including that we are willing to work with both of them to try to locate any remaining items (though most appear to have been sold prior to BAM’s repossession of the store).'''

We refuse to let a private legal battle obscure our core values. Moving forward, we are implementing more rigorous record keeping, inventory management, and more transparency in our buy, sell, and trade process, and de-escalation training with corporate and franchisees, and their staff.

===Claims We’ve Seen Online===

====What is True====

*'''A family is caught in the middle:''' The Mansell family entered into a consignment agreement with the former Salem Franchisee, Chrystal Law/Gorman, unlawfully, and the family allegedly has not been paid or made whole by her, the former store owner.
*'''Corporate lawfully repossessed a defaulting store:''' BAM Corporate repossessed the Salem location because the previous independent owner had stopped making payments on the purchase of the location, had not been paying royalties for multiple months and owed additional tens of thousands in back pay for unpaid expenses on her behalf.
*'''BAM found a small portion of inventory and offered it back, though it may not have been Mr. Mansell’s:''' Our incoming team found a small remnant of sets (estimated between $2,000 and $5,000) that appeared to be similar to the sets consigned. We set them aside and offered them to Mansell as a courtesy. The offer still stands.
*'''Security issues for the collection:''' On a podcast in 2025, Mr. Mansell shared that the Salem store had been broken into several times during the period she had his collection, raising serious questions about security for the inventory.
*'''The collection was moved offsite:''' In a separate written statement, Mr. Mansell acknowledged that Law/Gorman had removed sets from the store to an “offsite secure location” and that customers had to buy them first before they would be retrieved from storage. '''BAM corporate never took possession of, or had access to, this offsite storage facility.'''
*'''The former franchisee had been selling the collection for over a year:'''
**A recent audit of Point Of Sale (POS) system records show that over $50,000 worth of similar inventory was sold by Law/Gorman during that time period.
*'''We must tighten our franchise rules:''' This situation proves that we cannot simply assume every local Franchisee is following protocol. We will reinforce existing prohibitions on store-level side deals.
*'''Bricks & Minifigs specifically trains owners NOT to offer consignment:'''
**The franchise agreement states “…you agree that your Store will use and/or offer only services, products and merchandise, as set forth in the Operations Manual or as otherwise approved by us and as may be periodically modified by us in our sole discretion.” The 2023 Owners Operations Manual, which the former franchisee was bound to, states “Make sure […] your business ONLY buys, we DO NOT lend, loan, consign or pawn on any product that comes in.”

====What is False====

*'''Corporate took on the consignment liability:''' We acknowledge a Corporate support employee verbally said the new owner would “take all that consignment liability” when store ownership changed hands. The employee wasn’t making any formal agreement or committing the company legally. The statement’s intention was that any consignment inventory in the store would go back to its rightful owner, not that we were taking any agreements on ourselves. Our approach from that start has been simple: any inventory that doesn’t belong to us should go back to its rightful owner.
*'''BAM Corporate or the new franchisees “stole” a $100k–$200k collection:''' Neither corporate nor the incoming owners (Josh Johnson and Brandon Best) ever took, sold, or concealed this collection. Detailed inventory logs evidence that any collector items were already missing before we ever stepped foot inside.
*'''The collection was worth $200,000:''' While viral headlines use the $100,000 to $200,000 figure, the only documentation provided by the family months later was a spreadsheet detailing a collection worth somewhere in the range of $60,000 – $80,000.
*'''We were given records and documentation:''' Despite multiple requests, we never received verifiable copies of the signed contract, receipts of what had been paid to the Mansells, or a full true up of the inventory list.
*'''The store closed due to a lawsuit:''' The Salem store did not close because of a lost a legal case. It closed temporarily because our staff—including local teenagers—faced severe real-world safety hazards, targeted in-person stalking, and explicit bomb threats driven by viral videos.

====What is Unknown====

*'''The actual fate of the missing sets:''' While the online campaign disparages corporate, the actual evidence strongly indicates that most of the sets were sold by Law/Gorman, and any remaining inventory was stored offsite prior to BAM’s repossession of the store, regarding which BAM has never had knowledge of, control over, or access to.

==Standing Together: Defending Our Franchisees, Model, and Our Beloved Community==
While we are completely willing to look in the mirror, tighten our business practices, and improve our corporate oversight, we must also draw a hard line against the aggressive, lawless bullying that has targeted our brand.

Bricks & Minifigs is not a faceless, monolithic conglomerate. We are a network of over 300 locations across the United States and Canada, almost entirely owned and operated by local families, moms and dads, and passionate members of the LEGO community. These franchisees invest themselves and savings into building joyful environments for children and collectors.

Over the last several months, our ecosystem has been subjected to a vicious and unlawful campaign of disparagement and harassment. Content creators dropped sensationalized videos engineered entirely for clicks, views, and monthly subscriptions. Other online commentators blindly repeated these false accusations as absolute truth, without reaching out to Bricks & Minifigs for a statement, a comment, or consideration of the truth.

As a direct result of this reckless approach common in internet culture, innocent people have faced real-world trauma:

*'''Local small-business owners''' who have absolutely nothing to do with the Salem store have had their livelihoods threatened and their characters and reputations assassinated online through coordinated review bombing and negative comments, messages, emails, and phone calls.
*'''Teenage employees''' working their first retail jobs have been cornered, recorded, and aggressively harassed.
*'''Private families''' have had content creators show up at their residences in disguises, leak personal information, stalk their neighborhoods, and compromise the safety of their homes.
*'''Our community spaces''' have been disrupted by coordinated bomb threats and safety hazards.

This is not advocacy. This is not consumer protection. It is targeted harassment and monetization of conflict negatively affecting '''tens of thousands''' of owners and customers across our stores. We will not be bullied into silence, nor will we allow online mobs to destroy a brand built on honesty and imagination.

Our business model, centered on the joyful exchange of LEGO products through buy, sell, and trade, stands strong. We stand behind our dedicated franchisees across the nation who pour their hearts into their communities every day.

To the real building community—the families, the AFOLs (Adult Fans of LEGO), and the neighbors who know who we truly are—'''we thank you for standing with us.''' We are doing the hard work to make things right, to protect our customers, and to hold ourselves to the highest possible standards.

We ask that you look at the facts, reject the manufactured drama and unlawful activities, and continue supporting your local brick-and-mortar LEGO resell stores. Together, we will keep building.

==FAQ==
'''Q: If you want a resolution, why not just pay the money demanded online?'''

A: We are completely willing to sit down and figure out a fair, reality-based way to ensure this grandfather is made whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between a good-faith resolution and giving in to a coordinated, viral extortion campaign. We will not reward individuals who use fake delivery uniforms, forged signatures, staged police encounters, and residential harassment to manufacture a storyline for profit. We want to help the family; we will not reward a toxic online circus.

'''Q: How is corporate holding itself accountable to ensure this never happens again?'''

A: We are taking hard lessons from this situation and using them to strengthen our franchise operations. We are implementing three strict pillars of systemic accountability:

#'''More Rigorous Record Keeping and Inventory Management:''' We are updating our inventory logging requirements. This means mandating real-time, digital tracking from the moment a collection enters a store, creating an indisputable, permanent, identifiable paper trail that protects both the collector and the business. This process began in January 2025 and continues to be tightened and refined.
#'''Absolute Transparency in the Buy, Sell and Trade Process:''' We are completely eliminating ambiguity at the counter. Every single customer transaction—especially large-scale trades—will require standardized, corporate-approved disclosure forms. Informal, off-the-books side deals or localized consignment arrangements will continue to be strictly prohibited system-wide.
#'''Mandatory Professional Behavior and De-escalation Training:''' We are introducing comprehensive training for all corporate staff, franchise owners and their staff, as well as new and incoming franchisees. This curriculum focuses on maintaining strict professional boundaries, handling complex customer disputes with empathy and clarity, and understanding the precise corporate protocols required to resolve store-level issues safely and professionally. Internal reviews are actively being executed, and any deviations from corporate standards will be addressed through formal corrective actions.

'''Q: Is the offer to help find and return the sets identified as similar (though not proven to be Mr. Mansell’s) still valid?'''

'''A:''' Yes. Our position has been, and remains, that we are willing to help the parties resolve their private dispute, including the Mansell family, how we can. To the extent any inventory owned by the Mansell family can be reliably confirmed as having been in BAM’s possession, we are willing to identify it and coordinate its return. We are also offering to assist in the recovery of any financial amounts that may be owed, but that process must be handled through lawful channels, supported by documentation, and coordinated with the Mansell family or their authorized legal representatives.

Because there have been conflicting claims, unauthorized third parties, and public statements that do not match the documentation provided to us, we cannot responsibly resolve the matter through social media demands or individuals who have not established legal authority to act on the family’s behalf. We remain willing to help, but we need authentic and reliable documentation and proper representation necessary to do so responsibly and fairly.

'''Any further questions or complaints should be directed to complaints@bricksandminifigs.com.'''

==Police Involvement==
According to Reckless Ben and many of his subscribers, it seems like the American Fork police department has been wielded in multiple incidents to protect B&M's interests and discourage the pursuit of justice in this case via being called out for false drug possession claims, trespass notices, and multiple arrests of Ben and his friends who are trying to pursue justice via the legal system. The willingness and cooperation of law enforcement with B&M's owners calls into question the relationship of the owners with the police department and a potential connection between the two who seemingly both belong to the same Mormon church. American Fork Police department has denied these allegations<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=American Fork Police Department |date=2026-05-29 |title=Bricks and Minifigs/Benjamin Schneider Media Release |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcVmSQpIPRY |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-30 |website=Youtube}}</ref> and released body cam footage and a formal press release.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=American Fork Police Department |date=2026-05-29 |title=Body Cam footage and police reports |url=https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/22m8klcq7ewmsfvdegv76/AOmqzl9SPnQiq9wUxkAKzfU?rlkey=2r4sts4e87dv7mjyxqj3q98r4&e=1&st=k5osxheo&dl=0 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-30 |website=Dropbox}}</ref>

===American Fork Police Department Response===
The American Fork Police Department responded<ref name=":0" /> to these claims through a statement on Facebook. The police department also uploaded a video to YouTube to further document and respond to the allegations with body camera footage.<ref name=":1" />

The full statement is below:

AMERICAN FORK POLICE DEPARTMENT

COURAGE

UNITY

RESPECT

NEWS RELEASE

May 29, 2026

SUBJECT: Overview of Cases Involving "Bricks & Minifigs" Media & Benjamin Schneider In response to media currently circulating on social media involving "Legos and Minifigs" and Benjamin Schneider, the American Fork Police Department has released a video on its YouTube channel, @AmericanForkPoliceDepartment, in which Chief Cameron Paul

provides an overview of the department's four separate cases connected to this matter. In an effort to provide transparency and address misinformation currently circulating online, a link to a public records folder has also been included in the video description. The folder contains the department's body-worn camera (BWC) footage, in-vehicle camera footage, police reports, and other documents associated with these cases. All of these items are public

records. Despite claims that have been circulated online, the department is not currently seeking Benjamin Schneider. As of May 29, 2026, there are no active warrants for Mr. Schneider in the

State of Utah. Certain portions of the body-worn camera footage involving contact with Joshua Johnson, a reported victim, have been redacted. While the department would not normally redact these exchanges, it has done so at the request of the Utah County Attorney's Office due to the

pending prosecution of criminal charges. We understand that many individuals following this matter online have strong feelings regarding the underlying business dispute originating in Oregon and allegations that people may have suffered significant financial losses. We recognize that some members of the public are

frustrated, angry, or believe justice has not yet been served regarding those allegations. Those concerns are understandable. However, the American Fork Police Department's responsibility is to investigate incidents within our jurisdiction and enforce the laws that apply to situations in our community. Nothing in the actions taken by our officers should be interpreted as validating, supporting, assisting, or defending any individual connected to the separate allegations being discussed online. Our involvement in these cases was limited to fulfilling our

legal obligations and enforcing Utah law based on the circumstances presented to us.

Individuals with questions may contact the American Fork Police Department at 801-

763-3020.

CAMERON PAUL I CHIEF OF POLICE

75 East 80 North

American Fork, UT 84003

Office 801-763-3020

Facsimile 801-763-3030
[[File:American Fork Police Department Statement.png|thumb]]

==Lawsuit==
{{Ph-I-L}}

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}

Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Bricks and Minifigs accused of theft of over $200,000 dollars worth of Lego sets

File:American Fork Police Department Statement.png