330 LMB 4619SA

Was not a ferrari, but a real Cobra 427SC.

 

New Court Orders for seizure, and return...based on the original theft, issued by Florida Court where he nows holds residence.

That's fresh, sharp teeth on that.....

 

Witness the ongoing battle, no fortunately closed, regarding the 250 Gt Spider Series 1 as seen here http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196197&highlight=0799 and/ or the battle for #0384, the 375 Plus as seen here http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114840&highlight=0799 both of which have parallels for discussing stolen vehicles.

From my experience, and I have never been directly involved, it depends on the law of not just the country where the car was stolen from or is now residing but also which countries it traveled through. This would include theft of a motor vehicle, car conversion (if applicable) and receiving stolen property (where the end receiver is different to the thief).

#0799 was owned by two Swiss owners and kept (for tax purposes ?) in Spain. The ownership in whichever country was that one owner, the one with the largest financial interest in the vehicle, was listed as the primary owner, the other was listed as a secondary owner. When the primary owner decided to sell and then didnt pay out the other owner, the other owner felt the car had been stolen. In reality the law stated that the secondary owner may have had a financial stake in the car, but certainly didnt own it. One could suggest this was simply trying to extort money from the now current owner, especially since it took 15 + years for any action to be taken.

#0384, well read the posts there to get a good idea of how the system(s) work. Possible receiving, car conversion, theft, theft again etc.

Mercedes Benz Grand Prix car sold to Colin Crabbe in the 1980's by the then Romanian owner, only to be seized by the Ceaucesceaus in Romania during the last days. The car was then surreptitiously taken to Switzerland and sold to a private owner. In Swiss law the then owner of stolen property does not (did not?) need to give it back.

Common law changes from country to country and in the USA state to state

Statute of limitations - commonly the USA does not have a limit on the length between the car being stolen and the date action can be taken to either take action or reclaim the property. Other countries do, in #0384's thread there is discussion that a 10 year statute of limitations is in force in Belguim, and of course any limit is taken from the date it was stolen, so even if the law has been changed, it doesnt count.

Receiving or selling stolen property, some states or countries will have differing laws stating what constitutes stolen property and/ or dealing there in.

Ownership rights - most commonly owners get involved in little schemes over the years and frequently these involve some extremely complicated form of ownership either in trust or in share. Likely for tax purposes or for storage, the scheme might seem like a great idea at the time. This makes actual ownership of the vehicle incredibly hard to prove, when it has actually been stolen, how do you prove you actually owned it in the first place.

On the bright side one huge limiting factor for all of these crimes is that a car such as a classic Ferrari only has full value when it is able to be used or offered in the USA. Events such as Pebble Beach, Cavallino, Monterey historic races and many others are huge drawcards for the Ferrari owner. IF you cannot take the vehicle to the states (or any other country where it could be claimed) then the value and joy of ownership takes a severe hit. IMO This is a significant factor leading to many of these stolen car claims being quietly and quickly sorted out.

If I were Chairman Lee I would negotiate a fair value settlement with the claimant and make him depart the scene. And economically, he paid roughly US$2 million for the car, which is now worth in the region of $10 million. Pay the guy $5 million compensation, and there is still a $3 million upside, with the potential for suing whoever owned, received and sold the vehicle for recovery of losses.

 

I think you meant to say the late-Terry Cohn, rather than Colin Crabbe?

 

Do you or Ed Niles recall 4619 SA having a steel body as 335s suggests?

 

Terra: My 35 year old memory of this car is that it was alloy bodied. It makes no sense that it would be steel. In that era, alloy was actually easier to work with than steel for Scaglietti. Only when they needed series production would steel be cheaper to produce.

 

I dunno.

No-one here has mentioned the notion of a "BFP"; a bona fide purchaser for value. As a lawyer, I should be answering this instead of posing the question, but this is not my field of law and I'm too busy to go do the research. I remember in law school, those many years ago, we were taught that an innocent BFP might prevail over the the victim. When I see the names of John Hadjuk and Joe Marchetti in the chain of ownership, I have to think that they, and others, were probably innocent BFPs.

Just throwing a little more mud in the waters.

 

Jalopnik shows a theft report that is inconsistant with title in efforts to conceal whatever was going on. False documents negate any bona fide transaction.

 

Ed,

My recent research is that when competing claims of ownership arise as to a possessor of a stolen car, there are a few legal precepts that guide a court's inquiry - when one acquires a stolen car WITH title from a thief, be it physical theft or theft by fraud (bad check, for example), a thief can never pass more title than that which he legitimately acquired.

As to a subsequent downstream purchaser of that same car WITH title, courts apply a good faith purchaser test (2 part test) when deciding with whom to place the loss. That GFP must have paid value (near market value) and bought without notice (prudent and reasonable buyer must take steps as any such buyer would in the course of acquisition).

Thus, a car missing a title is a problem, as is a car missing its VIN plate, as is a discounted price, a late Friday nite sale, an all cash sale, etc. Those facts put a buyer on notice that he better get to the bottom of why because the court surely will.

If everything is on the up and up, but someone has to lose, often, a court will burden the loss on the shoulders of who was in the best position to have prevented the loss. Like the guy who accepts a forged cashier check late on Friday night - a court will put that "seller" in its targets for not simply waiting / checking with the bank BEFORE releasing the goods.

In the case of rapidly appreciating cars purchased in good faith for value and without notice, an owner need only reimburse that GFP and take back his vehicle and title. I have NOT seen any instance where a GFP is allowed to profit from the victim's misfortune, and every GFP case I have reviewed seems to be designed so that a GFP is not out of pocket.

Now, when the value does not appreciate, the GFP may be allowed to retain as there is no profit and it is not worth the victim reimbursing full value, but it takes a court procedure to sort it out in any case so that title does pass. Also, the victim can't have taken insurance money, in which case an insurer is the new "owner" by subrogation.

Short story - when buying, do your homework. If without a title, you better dig deep. If at a discount, dig deep. If in the hands of a mechanic who does not have such resources to own such a car (as here), dig deep. If recorded liens by banks, dig real deep, especially on recently issued titles. Courts do a fact intensive review of value and notice before deciding the matter. Lienholders have been awarded the car (or money) in many cases when the buyer did not do his due diligence. An NCIC check is highly advised. When serial numbers are out of whack with a manufacturers series, that's a red flag.

With these high value, unique collectibles that only astute buyers are even willing to buy, the due diligence level gets pretty high, and is different than what a typical mass production car buyer does. With the rare and unique stuff, one should do a chain of title check, as is the norm when buying homes worth far less.

One man's (well studied) opinion. And of course there may be a few outliers - they usually get distinguished if it bubbles up to the supreme courts of a given state.

Internationally, the laws may be worded differently, but the effect of not rewarding thieves and not profiting off of victims is still the policy objective of legislatures and judiciary. Any other way of handling it encourages and institutionalizes theft and laundering.

And if you know it is a stolen car, you are likely going to be guilty of a criminal act if you buy it, handle it, or sell it. The courts draw the line there because the legislatures have expressed their will.

I know of this very interesting Ohio case of a stolen Ferrari worth millions and a famous international Ferrari dealer where . . .

Joe

*

 

In a list of Ferrari 250GTO owners in FerrariChat.com there was some mention of one of the cars being a stolen car, but when I tried to follow that up, I heard it described as a 330LMB that reportedly went from Las Vegas to a Korean man who is head of an multi-billion dollar electronics firm. Apparently this Korean executive has already served time in Korea on other charges so is no stranger to the law. I was just wondering how come the US owner of the car can't just go to Korea and re-po his car, which if it is considered a GTO must be worth $35 million at least?

I realize my question might be naive, but find it interesting that someone at such a top executive level would have the chutzpah to drive a stolen car. (And apprently get away with it).

 

A 330 LMB is not a GTO. Info here: http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375818

 

Jalopnik ran an article that went viral, right after Apple won its' Billioin dollar suit against Samsung... google "samsung chairman Ferrari " every one was having fun with Samsung CEO driving a "hot" car

must be in deep hiding and staying there, no one has come forward with where the car is...there must be some heavy sh+t going on, nothing has been said since the article

 

It's better.....LOL!

This car will probably not be seen again, until he dies....I have the Jay Koka print of it....

 

In what little research I did I saw that it had more than one body
on it at times and even was mis-described while it was in long term storage so it would be less likely to be connected with the missing car.

As far as it being a GTO, I found it on a list of GTOs published on Ferrarichat.com though I realize that the confusion in making any list of GTOs is that the body style was not fixed-- one had a 400 Superamerica body and one had a 330LM body, for instance. Enzo Ferrari would mix and match bodies if you were a favorite customer like the time Prince Bernhard ordered a 400Superamerica body but wanted a 250GT engine because it was lower cost and easier to maintain.

Still I am surprised that Ferrari fans being such serial number fans that once they had the number of the missing 330LMB that more people didn't recognize its true provenance (sp?).
I wonder if that is a result of the American owner , who did not have it insured, not having it registered? Back when I would "flip" cars I didn't bother re-registering them under my name or even insuring them so there was no "paper trail" that connected to me. But the problem with that is, if it is stolen, it's that much harder to prove it was yours if you don't have documentation showing the car was in your name. And the problem with cars fast rising in value, as this was--and is--you would supply your insurance company with a fresh update on your stated value every few months. But he must have had it registered for it to appear at various large events, though not necessarily, because you can roll your car from a tractor trailer onto the roads of a private business like Pebble Beach without touching a public road, hence no registration plate required.

 

The car in question is 330 LMB s/n 4619SA. Are you confusing it with s/n 3673SA which is not the car? More pictures of 330LMB s/n 4619SA can be found in post 5386 by Ed Niles in the link below:

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89883&page=270

Picture by Ed Niles.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Of course I recognize that body. But I found another report that said it had a different body at one time. Thus it could be "hidden in plain sight." (they were looking for a blonde so ignored redheads, etc.) Apparently the owner left it at the shop where he bought it in Atlanta and it was from there it was stolen. I jumped into the net again and found a site with a police report listing the mechanic's name who owned the shop and it says S/N 4619. I know Mr. Niles, a well respected barrister, so he must have owned the car when its ownership status was firm and when it was bodied as a 330LMB.

Here's the site with the police report. Bear in mind that newspaper it is supposed to be from is a famous "rag" with journalistic standards considerably below say, the NY Times.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196193/Samsung-chairman-thought-Ferrari-stolen-owner-Atlanta-1977.html

 

if I read correctly... s/n 4381 SA is the ONLY 330 LMB that had any body swaps, these were done by coach builder Fantuzzi, it was used to make a film among other things as it changed its' body / appearance... eventually the original body was put back restoring it to its' original appearance... the Fantuzzi bodies eventually found a permanent place on other Ferrari doner chassis and survive...

s/n 4619 SA appears to be the only unmolested 330LMB chassis as it has never raced or crashed. Some attribute it to be the first Ferrari to reach 300 kph.

 

Pictured below is 4381SA when it had its Fantuzzi body. 4619SA is the only 330 LMB that has 3 double choke Weber carbs. The others have 6. 4725SA was the one that was credited with being the first car to do 180 mph down the Mulsanne Straight at Le Mans?

Info on the 4 330 LMB cars below.

Barchetta.cc info on 4381SA: http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all.ferraris/detail/4381sa.330lm.htm

Barchetta.cc info on 4453SA: http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all.ferraris/detail/4453sa.330lm.htm

Barchetta.cc info on 4619SA: http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all.ferraris/Detail/4619SA.330LM.htm

Barchetta.cc info on 4725SA: http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all.ferraris/detail/4725sa.330lm.htm



RHD 4725SA in the video which was recently sold by Talacrest: http://www.talacrest.com/Ferraris-Sold/Ferrari-330-LMB/6013.htm

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiVfvy3sVlQ&feature=related[/ame]
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What is a bit interesting, or maybe not, is that the Police report has "refer to: TR1330LM" written on the top. See 2nd pic and link here for info on TR1 330LM: http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all.ferraris/detail/0808.330tri.htm
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I have a personal connection to 4619. In the summer of 1977, Fong sold the car to John Hajduk of Motorkraft in Bensenville, IL. John offered the car to me for $40,000. I visited John and inspected the car. I could not come up with the amount to buy the car that afternoon, so we drove the three hours home. After we got home, I found a way to get the money and called John to tell him I could pay for the car. However, in the mean time, John sold the car to Joe Marchetti. I have always felt that of all the great Ferraris that I missed this was THE car that "got away".

I can tell you that 4619 has never been rebodied, was then very original on three carbs and still is one of the fastest Ferraris I have ever been in.

As to the "stolen" car situation, please be very careful in your opinions as this car has been hiding in plain sight for 35 years. I find it curious that suddenly now, when the cars have become so very valuable, a previous owner has decided to persue the recovery of his "stolen" car. Don Fong is no doubt a man with an "interesting" history. He was associated with numerous "stolen" Ferraris over the years for reasons that are varied and convoluted. However, this car has never been "hidden" from view and has never been persued until now.

 

Very interesting, Dyke. Thanks for sharing your connection to 4619.

 

according to what has been published, this isn't a "why now" situation for its' recovery
it has been marked stolen since it was taken and been an open file with law enforcement...

a better question would be why no one has made an effort to clear the title issues... there are no title issues until it was stolen, ( there are theft reports and arrest records )
Why would someone with the resources to purchase a high value car not have their legal team make an effort to correct the defects in the title. Instead the car is hidden with the hope that things will go away, a indication that there is uncertainty about the validity of the title. If there are no issues with title, why hide it. Where is it now ?

 

Could be very possible it's held up like this with 50m in gold

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8uBtfTqA8[/ame]

 

But you would think it would have been advertised in ads in CAVALLINO and Forza.

I think there are lessons to be learned by buyers of old cars here, to whit:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) don't leave the car where you bought it. Take it away immediately. Why? Because the private owner's friends may decide they want to switch parts-- that was one worry I had when buying cars from private parties. I would tow the car immediately to a private storage facility and not tell the seller where it was going.

2.)Get a signed-off title. If you don't put the car in your name, you can still insure it, using the Bill of Sale to prove you own it. Send the title Fed Ex to yourself so the title is not stored with the car.

Going back to the mystery of why it wasn't recovered earlier, there's still unanswered questions--if the car was at various Ferrari events in the U.S, why couldn't the owner have gone to any of these events and had it confiscated on the spot if he had a legitimate claim?

Or, why can't the claim be established today in 2012 in a Korean court and the car confiscated from the Korean "owner"?

Finally, I don't think the American owner was trying very hard to find it--before it went to Korea it was at a collector car dealer in the U.S.. He could have run pictures in say, 25 regional editions of Auto Trader with the headline "Has anyone seen this car?" and found it as these dealerships have a lot of visitors. I found rarer cars (one-offs) this way.

 

f.y.i. car was purchased directly from peachtree bank holder of title. or atleast the one that mattered to the fbi. L. Hajduk / motorkraft