Ex-staff changed company car ownership and got loan against it, car now being repossessed!

[NanLaew]

8 hours ago, Robert24 said:

The 1st step of changing ownership from company to get name seems unclear to me. Did she fake some signatures too?

Yes she did. From the OP.

 

Quote

... Through further investigation it appears she achieved the loan by forging and faking signatures on a power of attorney, making false police reports (saying blue book was lost) and from there going to the transport department and making the change on the blue book. It was all quite easy for her. ...

 

You did read the OP didn't you?

[Robert24]

 
You did read the OP didn't you?

Just read it again. She faked signatures to obtain a loan. But how she can change the ownership in the Blue book is unclear to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Never mind.

Sent from my SM-J710F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[NanLaew]

12 minutes ago, Robert24 said:

Just read it again. She faked signatures to obtain a loan. But how she can change the ownership in the Blue book is unclear to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Never mind.

Sent from my SM-J710F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yes, it has been a bit of an eye opener how there's a total lack of due diligence by the government agency trusted with the stewardship of vehicle ownership and what appears to be a relatively easy and possibly quite common way to commit fraud. It appears that obtaining a power of attorney either doesn't require the involvement of a lawyer or mandates that a lawyer needs to verify the truthfulness of any PoA which he drafts, witnesses or affixes his signature.  After that, getting the Transport Office to arbitrarily change ownership of a vehicle under finance and even under another individuals ownership is quite easy without contacting that owner directly. Getting a loan based on a vehicle title acquired by fraud looks like being the easiest bit.

Edited April 24, 2017 by NanLaew

[johng]

The power of attorney from does require a witnesses signiture.

[Don Mega]

1 minute ago, johng said:

The power of attorney from does require a witnesses signiture.

 

And that person can be anyone.

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, Don Mega said:

 

And that person can be anyone.

Including the OP's thieving ex-employee's friend and fellow ex-employee.

[Don Mega]

Just now, NanLaew said:

Including the OP's thieving ex-employee's friend and fellow ex-employee.

I would not be surprised if the signatures on the POA are all from the same hand.

[Robert24]

Yes, it has been a bit of an eye opener how there's a total lack of due diligence by the government agency trusted with the stewardship of vehicle ownership and what appears to be a relatively easy and possibly quite common way to commit fraud. It appears that obtaining a power of attorney either doesn't require the involvement of a lawyer or mandates that a lawyer needs to verify the truthfulness of any PoA which he drafts, witnesses or affixes his signature.  After that, getting the Transport Office to arbitrarily change ownership of a vehicle under finance and even under another individuals ownership is quite easy without contacting that owner directly. Getting a loan based on a vehicle title acquired by fraud looks like being the easiest bit.

Probably best to keep the original blue book safe somewhere. I guess without that it would be more difficult to commit fraud.

But at the end, whoever has done and been involved, I guess they can be easily traced and prosecuted

Sent from my SM-J710F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[NanLaew]

33 minutes ago, Robert24 said:

Probably best to keep the original blue book safe somewhere. I guess without that it would be more difficult to commit fraud.

But at the end, whoever has done and been involved, I guess they can be easily traced and prosecuted

Sent from my SM-J710F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yes. Since the registration document is like a vehicle passport, it shouldn't be left lying around. Maybe in the case of the OP, whoever owns the company needs to take responsibility for allowing anyone in the office access to the company-owned vehicle registrations. That's the problem wit company vehicles though. In my experience in the UK and US and China, even drivers of company-owned vehicles tend to be less diligent in looking after something that belongs to someone else.

 

A correction regarding a post I made earlier claiming that this fraud could be perpetrated on a financed vehicle. Since the finance company retains the blue book until terms of payment have been completed, it would be pretty much impossible for this type of fraud to be carried out while the vehicle is still 'owned' by the finance company.

 

 

[NanLaew]

38 minutes ago, Robert24 said:

But at the end, whoever has done and been involved, I guess they can be easily traced and prosecuted

I think prosecution may be hampered here where the end result of the fraud may be civil matter whereas the root cause may be a criminal matter? Civil court filings tend to be fraught with delays and appeals whereas the criminal courts may be less glacial?

[Don Mega]

16 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

 

A correction regarding a post I made earlier claiming that this fraud could be perpetrated on a financed vehicle. Since the finance company retains the blue book until terms of payment have been completed, it would be pretty much impossible for this type of fraud to be carried out while the vehicle is still 'owned' by the finance company.

 

 

This person managed to obtain ownership  fairly easily and without the original blue book so in theory it does not matter who the legal owner is bank or otherwise.

[madhav]

4 hours ago, Robert24 said:

Probably best to keep the original blue book safe somewhere. I guess without that it would be more difficult to commit fraud.

But at the end, whoever has done and been involved, I guess they can be easily traced and prosecuted

Sent from my SM-J710F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

The blue book was kept in the company safe, but it made no difference. She just used the fake POA to give authority to report it lost to the police and then go to the transport dep to get a new one.

[NanLaew]

4 hours ago, Don Mega said:

This person managed to obtain ownership  fairly easily and without the original blue book so in theory it does not matter who the legal owner is bank or otherwise.

That's true.

 

In that case, I am off to report the neighbors new tuna's blue book missing and get a loan on the new book.

 

Or maybe that muay thai boxer with the 7 million baht Porsche... I mean the possibilities are endless here.

[sandemara]

Theft is theft. It's absurd to suggest that a Blue Book produced based on false and misleading information or fake signatures and statements can be seen as "legitimate". That your company owns the care and has first call on its possession is indisputable.  The only person likely to face related charges or suffer penalty or financial loss is your lying, untrustworthy former employee, who should be looking forward to a very uncomfortable life s a consequence.  The finance companies or banks that acted in "good faith'' when trusting a scam artist would also expect to chase that lying scammer and force them to suffer the consequences of her actions.  They can't pass their responsibility for their loss onto you to bear. You are all victims of the same person.  Thailand has seen similar scams in the past and the courts are particularly astute when assessing 'theft as a servant' type offences.

I would ensure you keep a sharp eye on the whereabouts of your former employee while they continue to strut about thinking they've got away with scurrilous behavior. Sooner or later they're going to be advised either by police or or a lawyer that they're heading for big trouble.  Your own lawyer will also probably advise you to ensure you provide some financial encouragement for due police diligence in following up the matter.  Sooner or later your ex-employee will realise they need to disappear - store addresses of whatever family you know of, or previous addresses.  (helpful for police).  You should not expect to suffer loss of the company asset. Just make sure you do what you can to make this scum suffer. Good luck.

[madhav]

3 hours ago, BEVUP said:

No they don't as there is no story for her to give as one poster said you still have the original blue book  &  that would prove she committed fraud by lying about the loss of it . ( in other words stole your car )

So the police only really need to give you a report lodgement number so you can go to the insurance to tell them it was stolen by fraudently 

I wish it were so simple, but so far everyone we speak to in all departments say there is nothing we can do but take it to court. However these departments might be trying to cover their incompetence. I will wait to hear back from the lawyers as usually they are more aware of what is reality and and what is fantasy. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by madhav

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies regarding the description of kahunas/cojones have been removed. 

 

A post containing profanity was removed as well.  

[Dagnabbit]

If the car is worth 500k, this is a significant theft.

You do not need the police. You can file a case yourself in the criminal courts. It will cost very little and she will be facing at least a few years in jail.

Most likely, if you do this, she will find the money to sort you out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dagnabbit]

Don't know about sunny Thailand, but anywhere else it's a legal document and must be notorised. My missus has PoA over me when I had a rather large aneurysm repair. You can't just get one from Wollies.

All a PoA needs is a signed copy of your passport and signed permission. No notary or lawyer is needed in most cases.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dagnabbit]

I think your looking at US law.. there you would be right.. but its not the same in Dutch law.. and so I have been told Thai law. Most Thai law is NOT based on US law.
 
The finance company did due diligence... there was a blue book, the car was in possession of the person with the blue book. There are no more requirements. What else do you expect them to do. If you have a blue book and you have the car, i can assume the car is yours because these are the documents needed and you have the car. So I acted in good faith when I buy from you I am protected from claims from the rightful owner.

Now if it was clear the blue book was forged (it was not it was handed out by the DLT) then I acted in bad faith.. no protection.
 
I have looked US law up its different there, but I have been assured Thai law has the same clauses as Dutch law. The Thais got most of their laws from the French.. German and English (not US) Dutch got their laws mainly from French and German. So its often similar to Thai law.
 
I do agree with your assessment of the DLT. 

Usually, if you buy stolen goods, you dont get to keep them. You are a victim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JaseTheBass]

Usually, if you buy stolen goods, you dont get to keep them. You are a victim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The law is different in Thailand or every successful businessperson, politicians and 'na' would be banged up.

Sent from my Cray II supercomputer

[madhav]

We are all supposed to meet at the police station today. I hope she shows up. We even spoke to her mother to try to encourage her to come, and explained that we will not file any charges etc as long as she shows up and we can work out a deal. Let's see if she shows up. I can tell you one thing though, if she doesn't show up then she will be in serious trouble and see jail time, that is for sure. 

[robblok]

12 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

Usually, if you buy stolen goods, you dont get to keep them. You are a victim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In my country you can keep the goods if you bought them if you can prove you acted in good faith. So if a car is offered to you with all the right papers at a normal price.. then your in good faith.. if papers are missing or other signs its not legit your not acting in good faith. Actually there are more countries with laws like that. Its not the anglo saxon system but more based on the French system. 

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, madhav said:

We are all supposed to meet at the police station today. I hope she shows up. We even spoke to her mother to try to encourage her to come, and explained that we will not file any charges etc as long as she shows up and we can work out a deal. Let's see if she shows up. I can tell you one thing though, if she doesn't show up then she will be in serious trouble and see jail time, that is for sure. 

Good luck.

 

I wonder if this from another thread would have made things more difficult for the fraudster? Maybe not of she managed to pass off a forged signature on the PoA but maybe something for owners to check on their blue books.

[Mike45]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

In my country you can keep the goods if you bought them if you can prove you acted in good faith. So if a car is offered to you with all the right papers at a normal price.. then your in good faith.. if papers are missing or other signs its not legit your not acting in good faith. Actually there are more countries with laws like that. Its not the anglo saxon system but more based on the French system. 

I just tried Googling what the law is in Denmark regarding buying stolen property. It appears that the Good Faith laws were seen as encouraging the buying of stolen property to ....buy stolen property. The laws were changed. Buying stolen property is no longer legal even if you bought them in good faith. 

[robblok]

28 minutes ago, Mike45 said:

I just tried Googling what the law is in Denmark regarding buying stolen property. It appears that the Good Faith laws were seen as encouraging the buying of stolen property to ....buy stolen property. The laws were changed. Buying stolen property is no longer legal even if you bought them in good faith. 

I don't see how these laws encourage buying stolen goods.. because there are certainly a rules before a deal is made in good faith. Buying a bike from a well known thief is not acting in good faith. Buying stuff at real low prices (then you wonder why so cheap) is not in good faith.  Anyway it just protects the buyer and keeps the problem contained.. otherwise too many people in the chain to be prosecuted who are innocent.  (if in good faith)

[NanLaew]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

Buying a bike from a well known thief is not acting in good faith.

How about buying a bike from someone you didn't know was a well known thief? Easy to say, "I didn't know, honest" and keep the goods, no?

 

Maybe what some dodgy Danes were doing so they changed the law to eliminate any second guessing and remove an obvious and easy conduit for stuff that "fell of the back of a lorry."

[robblok]

How about buying a bike from someone you didn't know was a well known thief? Easy to say, "I didn't know, honest" and keep the goods, no?
 
Maybe what some dodgy Danes were doing so they changed the law to eliminate any second guessing and remove an obvious and easy conduit for stuff that "fell of the back of a lorry."

Buying a bike on the streets is not considered good faith. Buying a bike way below cost is not either. So why would some buy a suspected stolen bike at market price. They would not.. so buying a bike at going rate is in good faith. There is no advantage at buying a bike at normal market rate if stolen. Get it... no advantage to the buyer.. no warning signs.. then good faith.

By changing that law they made it hard for honest buyers to buy second hand stuff and that is a bad thing.

Just imagine buying something at normal price that you think is not stolen and ending up in jail and having to return it. That is just crazy. It would make doing business real uncertain. Now the crime stays contained between thief and real owner. Much smarter.

[stevenl]

In the mean time, the OP was supposed to meet the thief on Sunday, and it is Tuesday now. Do you have an update OP?

[madhav]

18 hours ago, stevenl said:

In the mean time, the OP was supposed to meet the thief on Sunday, and it is Tuesday now. Do you have an update OP?

Yes. She actually showed up to the police station on Sunday and we worked out a deal. To sum it all up, the deal was as follows:

 

Ex-employee would agree to sign all necessary paperwork (which we had ready and prepared complete with POA and ID/House card copies) that would allow the transfer of the car ownership back to our company.

 

Our side of the deal is that we would agree to pay off the entire remaining balance of the loan to the finance company.

 

The finance company would agree that the blue book would not touch the hands of the ex-employee but instead would go straight to us once the bill is paid and from there we would be able to transfer the car back to the company.

 

The ex-employee would agree in writing on a minimum figure to pay back to us each month with the clear understanding that if any payments are not made then we will go ahead the criminal law suit and she would go to jail.

 

So all of this was agreed up and signed etc in front of the police and appeared to go down quite well.

 

We went to the finance company yesterday and met the manager and paid the balance. The part that really got me worked up to the point where I almost shouted at them was when the manager and her staff had the nerve to say direct to our faces that the ex-employee and the director had both actually come to the office in person 9 months back with the car and signed all the paperwork to legitimately authorise the entire transaction. We both said she is mistaken and that we had never been to this office ever and that it is absurd and almost insulting to suggest otherwise. But of course she refused to believe us. I was going to say that we were not even in the country at the time etc etc but at that point I realised saying anymore to her is pointless because she was probably in on the whole deal anyhow and she would lose face even more then she already was and maybe it would make the whole thing worse.

 

So all in all we got the car back and managed to avoid having to go to court. If anyone here has been through the Thai court process and can speak from direct experience like I can they would understand me in saying it's a relief to be able avoid the whole process. It is truly maddening and I would not wish it upon anyone.

 

Of course it's annoying that we had to pay the bill but we will get the money back (all be it slowly) and you have to see the bigger picture here. If we chose to contest paying at all, it would take years to go via the legal system, the car would never be in our hands the whole time (would have likely been auctioned off), it would cost a lot of money and create a lot of stress also.

 

My advice to people is keep your car book and ID safe and never make a copy of your ID without crossing a few lines through it and stating the purpose of the copy.

[Robert24]

Yes. She actually showed up to the police station on Sunday and we worked out a deal. To sum it all up, the deal was as follows:
 
Ex-employee would agree to sign all necessary paperwork (which we had ready and prepared complete with POA and ID/House card copies) that would allow the transfer of the car ownership back to our company.
 
Our side of the deal is that we would agree to pay off the entire remaining balance of the loan to the finance company.
 
The finance company would agree that the blue book would not touch the hands of the ex-employee but instead would go straight to us once the bill is paid and from there we would be able to transfer the car back to the company.
 
The ex-employee would agree in writing on a minimum figure to pay back to us each month with the clear understanding that if any payments are not made then we will go ahead the criminal law suit and she would go to jail.
 
So all of this was agreed up and signed etc in front of the police and appeared to go down quite well.
 
We went to the finance company yesterday and met the manager and paid the balance. The part that really got me worked up to the point where I almost shouted at them was when the manager and her staff had the nerve to say direct to our faces that the ex-employee and the director had both actually come to the office in person 9 months back with the car and signed all the paperwork to legitimately authorise the entire transaction. We both said she is mistaken and that we had never been to this office ever and that it is absurd and almost insulting to suggest otherwise. But of course she refused to believe us. I was going to say that we were not even in the country at the time etc etc but at that point I realised saying anymore to her is pointless because she was probably in on the whole deal anyhow and she would lose face even more then she already was and maybe it would make the whole thing worse.
 
So all in all we got the car back and managed to avoid having to go to court. If anyone here has been through the Thai court process and can speak from direct experience like I can they would understand me in saying it's a relief to be able avoid the whole process. It is truly maddening and I would not wish it upon anyone.
 
Of course it's annoying that we had to pay the bill but we will get the money back (all be it slowly) and you have to see the bigger picture here. If we chose to contest paying at all, it would take years to go via the legal system, the car would never be in our hands the whole time (would have likely been auctioned off), it would cost a lot of money and create a lot of stress also.
 
My advice to people is keep your car book and ID safe and never make a copy of your ID without crossing a few lines through it and stating the purpose of the copy.

What a headache. Thanks for sharing. Good points to take away from this.

Sent from my SM-J710F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app