Theft and Larceny: Falsely Accused of Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle

Re: Falsely Accused of Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle

Quote:

Quoting budwad

JK, OP (I think) is referring to the title that was in his name for months before he signed the blank title. He is saying that he has proof that the van was titled to him and not that he has gotten a duplicate title after signing the blank title.

So what was the valuable consideration for this transaction (that the seller is required fill out and sign)? And when was the van delivered to the buyer? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Bingo... it's not that hard people.
I have copy of the title origionally in my name and the receipt for the $ paid to title in my name from 7 months prior to the incident.
Nothing was "illegally" obtained after the fact nor was there any insurance fraud.

I'm done with this thread. Too many morons in it.

Re: Falsely Accused of Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

Bingo... it's not that hard people.
I have copy of the title origionally in my name and the receipt for the $ paid to title in my name from 7 months prior to the incident.
Nothing was "illegally" obtained after the fact nor was there any insurance fraud.

I'm done with this thread. Too many morons in it.

At least with your exit there will be one less moron.

If it is a photocopy it's meaningless. It shows it was in your name at one time. So
what?

the fact you relinquished ownership to another party and did not
disclose that to your insurance company and the DMV is fraud.

You can call whomever you wish a moron but remember; you are
the one facing criminal prosecution, not I.

Re: Falsely Accused of Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

A few months ago we had a heated argument at his office and I left with the van to remove my tools, parts, and equipment and bring it back to quit. A few min later he calls screaming he's gonna call the cops if I didn't bring the vehicle back to him immediately. I told him to relax and I would bring it back as soon as I had my stuff cleaned out. Another few min later I get a call from the local PD asking where I was and when was I going to bring the vehicle back to the Owner. I told them technically I was the owner since he had put the title,tag,and Insurance in my name. I told them he could pick it up from my attorney. (Here is my Mistake) I had forgotten I had signed the title and had given it back to him at an earlier date. Apparently without my knowledge he had re-titled and tagged the vehicle 15 days earlier without my knowledge but it was still insured in my name.

As you conveyed title back to him, you knew you didn't own the vehicle. From the standpoint of your knowing that he was the owner, it doesn't matter whether or not you realized that the owner had completed the process of registering the vehicle back into his name. Had he not titled the vehicle into his name, you would have a potential defense based upon the fact that you were still the title owner -- but he had, so you don't.

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

A few weeks ago he texted me saying he was sorry about the way things ended and he was dropping everything.

Once you file criminal charges, it's no longer up to you to decide whether or not the state prosecutes the person who you accuse of a crime. The prosecutor reviewed the police report from the time of the alleged offense and authorized charges. This person is free to tell the prosecutor, "I prefer not to proceed with the charges," but unless he's changing his story the prosecutor may continue to prosecute -- and if he changes his story he could create legal problems form himself.

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

IMO and everyone else's opinion that I talk to say this should have been handled differently and is a civil matter because I can't "steal" what I think is mine or am allowed to use.

The peculiar transactions involved might cause a prosecutor to decide to treat this as a civil matter -- and I don't know to what degree the full facts are included in the police report -- but as it stands you have been charged with a felony. At the time you kept the vehicle you knew that it wasn't yours, and you knew that the owner had demanded its return, so "everyone" is off-base in that regard.

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

Please someone advise what I should do next.

I would suggest getting a lawyer. It's difficult for an unrepresented person to speak to a prosecutor about this type of situation, even if the prosecutor is willing to speak with you, because the prosecutor is not an investigator and because the statements you make may not come across to the prosecutor as exculpatory. You may end up confessing to the crime while believing that you are clearing yourself, based upon the sort of misunderstanding of the facts that "everyone" has shared with you.

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

I did say that and that is what happened. As soon as my stuff was removed I handed it back over to him with a local Police officer present.

Where? At your lawyer's office?

If you had a lawyer at the outset, such that you have a lawyer's office to designate as the place of exchange, it would make sense to discuss your case with your lawyer.

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

I think you're missing the fact that I was still thinking the vehicle was still in my name...

You apparently thought that the owner had not registered the vehicle back into his own name, but you knew that it was not your vehicle.

Quote:

Quoting budwad

If we take OP's version of the events as true, then the boss and the police should have known that the first element of the crime could not be met because the boss never told him about retitling the van.

All this talk of bosses and employers is misplaced. We're talking about two independent businesses.

Quote:

Quoting budwad

Signing an open title without naming a buyer does not transfer the van.

No, but it does convey ownership of the vehicle. Once you transfer title, it's the new owner's vehicle to take and to register.

Quote:

Quoting budwad

He was using the van for 7 months under an contract to do work for the boss. It was lawful use up until the boss called the police.

Permissive use ends when permission is revoked, not when the police are called. He had a plausible argument for keeping the vehicle for just long enough to remove his belongings at an appropriate location, and not one second longer.

Quote:

Quoting budwad

Some have posted that when OP told the police that the van was his he was lying to police. I think that it shows what he believed at the time and helps OP.

Whether or not he believed that the vehicle was registered, he knew he didn't own the vehicle -- so I don't see how that helps.

Quote:

Quoting budwad

But taking OP's version of the facts, the boss knew that the van was not stolen and perhaps filed a false report as revenge. Then with remorse, the boss tries to withdraw the charges. But it was too late.

The OP had contact with the police prior to the authorization of charges, and has suggested that he shared his version of events with the police. We have no reason to believe that the prosecutor was unaware of both stories before authorizing charges.

Quote:

Quoting Anonomous1

Please explain how theres any insurance fraud here?

The idea of insurance fraud seems to me to be a red herring. But there were shenanigans involved, in relation to the conveyance of the title of the vehicle to you and your re-conveyance to the actual owner under the apparent belief that the title would not be registered. I suspect that it was the other person who was playing insurance games, as it would likely have cost him a great deal of money to insure a commercial vehicle that was then provided, without restriction on use, to a non-employee.

Quote:

Quoting budwad

It's not a duplicate or forged document. It's a copy for the file.

If a photocopy of a title conveying ownership to somebody else confirms anything about ownership, it confirms that you no longer own the vehicle.

Quote:

Quoting budwad

What date do you think the DMV will say the van changed owners? The date OP signed it and gave it to his boss or the date the boss put on the title and re-registered the van?

It doesn't matter. Even if the OP did not fully complete the title when transferring ownership back to the actual owner, there is no question that (a) he no longer owned the vehicle from that point forward and (b) even in terms of registered title, the vehicle was registered before the actual owner demanded that the vehicle be returned.