Sounds like an urban legend.
jeyerman(at)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(at)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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 08:20:17 CDT