Sounds like an urban legend.
jeyerman@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I recently read somewhere that a Corvette was recovered 25 years after it was
>stolen. It was returned to its original owner..... even though someone had
>just spent thousands of dollars restoring it. According to the article,
>California considers a stolen car a stolen car for ever. So..... if the
>untitled car you are trying to title was ever stolen, you might have a problem
>some day.
>
> Jan
>
> Jay_Laifman@countrywide.com wrote:
> > Fraud!? I wouldn't say that it is automatically fraud. You need the
> intent to deceive to rise to the level of fraud. If one or the other car's
> VIN has some history that the owner is intentionally trying to hide or is
> intentionally trying to claim, then yes, it is fraud. For example, one car
> was stolen and wrecked, the other was not. If the owner used the VIN from
> the non-stolen/non-wrecked one, and put in on the stolen/wrecked one and
> tried to pass it off as a never wrecked car, that would be fraud. But, the
> basis of that fraud is the hiding of the theft/accident, not the switching
> of the VINS. As I indicate below, the code sections cited by our resident
> law enforcement agree with this.
>
> If you've got an old Alpine with nothing particular of importance about it,
> and only need to put a VIN on, and you put a VIN on from a same year/model
> Alpine, there is no fraud, especially if you disclose it to the buyer. To
> a concours originality person, who finds it important that not only is the
> car a 19xx Sunbeam Alpine, but that the VIN to a Sunbeam Alpine is the same
> VIN as the factory put on, there may be an issue if the buyer asks. But,
> that is no different than if the windshield wipers were no longer the same
> windshield wipers. There is nothing inherently special about the piece of
> metal that has the numbers stamped on it that makes it any more important
> to the originality than any other piece on the car.
>
> The only reason we put so much importance on it is because the DMV does.
> It's not as though we could not tell if a car was a 19xx Sunbeam Alpine
> with a 1600/1725 engine, synchro/non-sychro OD non-OD transmission if the
> VIN wasn't there. Ok, so maybe we wouldn't know the original color. And
> the only reason the DMV cares is for taxation and ownership tracking
> purposes, including tracking theft. As mentioned, as long as there is
> nothing hidden, like a theft, there is nothing fraudulent.
>
> Also, just because a law says something is illegal, it does not mean its
> immoral or unethical. Some laws do prohibit immoral and unethical acts,
> which in and of themselves are immoral or unethical and don't need the law
> to make them so, like murder or fraud. Then there are actions that become
> illegal only because of the law, like speeding limits and VIN plates.
> Driving 35 or 55 or 65 or 100 in and of itself is not immoral or unethical.
> Sure, driving too fast for the location, like 100 where there are kids
> playing, or 200 when you can't control your car do rise to the immoral or
> unethical - but that's because of the recklessness or even intentionally
> dangerous behavior.
>
> As to the particular sections cited, note that, as I indicated above,
> Section 10751 says that if there has been no theft, there is no violation:
>
> Section 10751(b) and (e)(1) both say that the car is to be returned to the
> owner, even if there is a "removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed" VIN if
> satisfactory evidence of ownership has been presented. So, again, if you
> can prove you own it, they have no right to take it. It's just a matter of
> proving ownership and detecting theft, NOT a matter of being evil by
> removing a VIN.
>
> Note also that 10750 allows an exception for restoration of the VIN -
> authorization is requried. But, it does not say that authorization must be
> obtained in advance.
>
> Just some thoughts. Bottom line, there are worse things in the world you
> can do.
>
> Jay
|