Rolling Shell with no VIN

[Zed Head]

But thanks for letting me exercise some words...

[tzagi1]

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

Here's a legal document from the feds on this issue.  See section 565.  This was in the useless links I shared earlier... 

CFR-2005-title49-vol6-subtitleB.pdf

The DOT is an agency to regulate manufacturers, please read section 556 and quote any language that is in opposition of my argument.

[Captain Obvious]

In Nevada, when you bring a vehicle in you have to go through a VIN inspection at the DMV. I suspect if they see a couple different VIN markings on the same car, there will be a problem. Also, they define a "Rebuilt vehicle" (NRS 482.098) in the following way:

1. A vehicle for which one or more of the following major components have been replaced:
(a) Cowl assembly;
(b) Rear clip assembly;
(c) Roof assembly;
(d) Floor pan assembly;
(e) Conventional frame coupled with one additional major component; or
(f) Complete front inner structure for a unibody.
Note: The term "rebuilt" does not include a vehicle for which the only change is the installation of a truck cab assembly.

And their definition of "cowl assembly" includes the firewall. So if you claim the firewall is from a different car and was replaced with one from a different car, then you are automatically in the "rebuilt vehicle" title category. That is from:  http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/vp064a.pdf

 

[Zed Head]

tzag hasn't really even defined his argument.  He's windmilling.  In the fighting sense, not the other one that shows up on Google (where does that stuff come from?).  We should just let it rest.

[tzagi1]

14 minutes ago, Captain Obvious said:

Here's some discussion on the matter:   http://www.vintageautomotive.net/

Xlnt, now we are getting somewhere.

Lets quote the language of 18 U.S.C. § 511

 

(a)A person who—

(1)

knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part; or

(2)

with intent to further the theft of a motor vehicle, knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters a decal or device affixed to a motor vehicle pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act,

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b)

(1)

Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen).

(2)The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are—

(A)

a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part;

(B)

a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair;

(C)

a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law; and

(D)a person who removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters a decal or device affixed to a motor vehicle pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act, if that person is the owner of the motor vehicle, or is authorized to remove, obliterate, tamper with or alter the decal or device by—

(i)

the owner or his authorized agent;

(ii)

applicable State or local law; or

(iii)

regulations promulgated by the Attorney General to implement the Motor VehicleTheft Prevention Act.

(c)As used in this section, the term—

(1)

“identification number” means a number or symbol that is inscribed or affixed for purposes of identification under chapter 301 and part C of subtitle VI of title 49;

(2)

“motor vehicle” has the meaning given that term in section 32101 of title 49;

(3)

“motor vehicle demolisher” means a person, including any motor vehicle dismantler or motor vehicle recycler, who is engaged in the business of reducing motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts to metallic scrap that is unsuitable for use as either a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle part;

(4)“motor vehicle scrap processor” means a person—

(A)

who is engaged in the business of purchasing motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts for reduction to metallic scrap for recycling;

(B)

who, from a fixed location, uses machinery to process metallic scrap into prepared grades; and

(C)

whose principal product is metallic scrap for recycling;

but such term does not include any activity of any such person relating to the recycling of a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle part as a used motor vehicle or a used motor vehiclepart.

(d)

For purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the term “tampers with” includes covering a program decal or device affixed to a motor vehicle pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act for the purpose of obstructing its visibility.

 

I'll refer you to section B-2-B

"a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair"

How about B-2-C..or B-2-D?? that one really takes the cake..

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse!,

The law is clear without a shadow of a doubt, and I thank the legislators for having the brain/hindsight.

Furthermore. Let us read the article carefully and try to understand the reason why was it written to begin with, IE, the spirit of the law, not the language. its to combat theft, nothing else.

18 U.S.C. § 2321 has nothing to do with this situation, it deals in trafficking stolen car parts.

 

[tzagi1]

8 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

tzag hasn't really even defined his argument.  He's windmilling.  In the fighting sense, not the other one that shows up on Google (where does that stuff come from?).  We should just let it rest.

The usual response in the face of defeat...you are right, ignore the facts, ignore the law, accept it if somebody tells you "you can't do that" with no legal basis whatsoever, however, I been there, I done that more then a few times, with no shame or legal fears (you don't even want to hear about what Frankensteins I have built) including a few cold war Russian made piles (registered as Jeeps) all I can tell you, if you play your cards right, and according to the law you have NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF. period.

[Zed Head]

Asking somebody to define their argument is a sign of defeat?  Man, you are really out there, swinging at anything that moves.  That's a sign of defeat.  You don't even care what you hit as you long as you hit something.  I don't think that you're even sure what you're arguing for anymore. 

Can you say, in a few words, what your point is?  The position that you think you're defending?

[Zed Head]

Back on topic - there are basically two basic sides to this discussion.  One is what you "feel" defines a car, and the other is what legally defines a car.  They're not the same thing, and several of the posts in this thread are really just railing against the law that allows people to remove the provenance of the original VIN.  Maybe invalidating that original stamping or etching in the firewall of the unibody Z car.  Depending on which state you're in.

 

[Captain Obvious]

In Indiana, if you want to get a title, you have to prove ownership. The easiest way to prove ownership is to provide a properly executed title (from the seller) when you request a new title. http://www.in.gov/bmv/2473.htm

However, if you cannot obtain a certificate of title from the seller of your vehicle, and the vehicle is valued at $5,000 or less, according to NADA average retail or clean retail value, you may apply for a certificate of title by completing an Affidavit of Ownership for a Vehicle – State Form 23037 -
http://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Affidavit_of_Ownership_Packet.pdf

1. An applicant who is unable to obtain a properly executed title for a vehicle may present the below form to obtain a certificate of title.
2. Please complete in blue or black ink or print form.
3. The retail value of the vehicle must meet the requirements as determined by the Bureau.
4. The purchaser must have a notarized Bill of Sale or a Bill of Sale signed under penalty of perjury which indicates the vehicle’s year, make, VIN, seller, purchaser, and purchase price. Sales tax will be assessed by the amount indicated on the Bill of Sale.
5. An unopened, unclaimed certified letter to the seller’s (and lien holder, if applicable) last known address requesting the title must be presented with this affidavit. A copy of the unopened letter should be included to confirm the request for the title to the vehicle in question. Do not open the original letter.
6. Include a lien release, if necessary.
7. A VIN inspection completed by law enforcement is required.
8. Include an Odometer Disclosure Statement, if applicable

I wonder if the PO sent the required certified letters and has the unopened returned letter? The purchase happened a couple years ago, right?

So you need either an old properly executed title, or you have to jump through hoops in order to prove ownership. And even if you DO get through those hoops, the vehicle still needs to be inspected for proper VIN information by an authorized BMV appointee.

And then when it's found during the VIN inspection that the VIN has been been altered or defaced, you have to jump through even more hoops and apply for a special identification number (MVIN) before you can apply for a certificate of title or registration: http://www.in.gov/bmv/2473.htm  and http://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Special_ID_Number_MVIN_Vehicle_App_Packet.pdf

So I've looked at three states:
In PA, you wouldn't be able to get it titled at all because you need a physical VIN tracing.
In Nevada, you would have to get a "Rebuilt Title" because the cowl was replaced (at best).
In Indiana, you would end up with a "Special Identification Number (MVIN)." title because the VIN had been altered or defaced. And that's even assuming you could properly even prove ownership of the vehicle in the first place.

I didn't check all the states, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were states where this car was a non-problem, but so far in the three for three that I've looked at, that's not the case.

Captain Out.  

Edited November 27, 2017 by Captain Obvious
Fixed links

[Jason240z]

I know i'm late to the party, however I have been affected by this before.

The Car ID is the chassis number.  No other part identifies the car.  Its the Part number 1, correct at the factory.  Why would a car use the number thats screwed to the dash and/or door plate? Why would you want to change the ID?  There is ZERO reason to change the ID away from the one on the chassis bulkhead.

A few years ago, I was on the receiving end of a car just like this.

I purchased a car from a company that at the time was considered the UK experts on these cars, its was jointly imported by them with a prolific UK importer who still brings cars in.

The door plate and dash tag were of a low vin 1970 car.  I was pleased with my purchase, put a few pics up on a UK forum.  I had to then swallow a very bitter pill.  The car turned out to be a 1973 body wearing early 1970 id's.  A ringer.  There's no honest way why you'd do this.  Once I cleaned all the filler away from the bulkhead it became apparent that the car was a mid 73 car.

I was lucky and managed to get a full refund, it did help raise my general awareness to this sort of thing and makes it a sensitive subject for me.  One i'd actively try to steer people away from.

Its not good news for a place like this to condone it in any away.  People looking the other direction is not the answer.  What happens if you have a crash, an assessor spots the mis matched numbers and uses it as a way to claim your insurance void? What happens when you sell?  How can there ever be any explanation thats anything but corrupt?

 

[Patcon]

1 hour ago, Jason240z said:

I know i'm late to the party, however I have been affected by this before.

The Car ID is the chassis number.  No other part identifies the car.  Its the Part number 1, correct at the factory.  Why would a car use the number thats screwed to the dash and/or door plate? Why would you want to change the ID?  There is ZERO reason to change the ID away from the one on the chassis bulkhead.

A few years ago, I was on the receiving end of a car just like this.

I purchased a car from a company that at the time was considered the UK experts on these cars, its was jointly imported by them with a prolific UK importer who still brings cars in.

The door plate and dash tag were of a low vin 1970 car.  I was pleased with my purchase, put a few pics up on a UK forum.  I had to then swallow a very bitter pill.  The car turned out to be a 1973 body wearing early 1970 id's.  A ringer.  There's no honest way why you'd do this.  Once I cleaned all the filler away from the bulkhead it became apparent that the car was a mid 73 car.

I was lucky and managed to get a full refund, it did help raise my general awareness to this sort of thing and makes it a sensitive subject for me.  One i'd actively try to steer people away from.

Its not good news for a place like this to condone it in any away.  People looking the other direction is not the answer.  What happens if you have a crash, an assessor spots the mis matched numbers and uses it as a way to claim your insurance void? What happens when you sell?  How can there ever be any explanation thats anything but corrupt?

 

and that is a serious concern. I suspect fraud was the intent from the beginning, to raise the cars value. I can still see reasons for taking two cars and creating one, where it's legal...

[Zed Head]

2 hours ago, Jason240z said:

Its not good news for a place like this to condone it in any away. 

Two things - please quote or copy the statement from any individual that has expressed "condoning" falsifying a VIN.  HS30 implied that that was happening but I don't think that there are any actual words written in this thread that show that.  You seem to be following HS30's lead.  The bulk of this thread is about how it could happen and what to do about it.  Nobody is suggesting that it's right or legal.

Second - if you do find a kernel of support in this thread for falsifying a VIN, please call out the individual.  Not this "place".  Don't use a broad brush to paint everyone on the site as a potential thief.  It's lazy.

If you start at the beginning of the thread and work through it you'll probably find the single post that started everything spinning madly, with unfounded insinuations of thievery, dishonesty and/or immorality.  

There's a lot of good discussion in here but the basic message is the one that's been taught to all of us as soon as we got some money to spend - caveat emptor.  Mistakes happen, thievery does happen, ignorance happens.  It's okay, and good, to talk about it, without condoning it.  87mj didn't do his due diligence and now has a problem on his hands.  Who knows what it will do to his soul.  He hasn't committed any crimes, yet.