Criminals Steal House Thanks To Hacked Email 227
mask.of.sanity writes with this quote from ZDNet:
"An international cybercrime investigation is underway into a sophisticated scam network that used email and fax to sell an Australian man's AU$500,000 property without his knowledge. The man was overseas when the Nigerian-based scammers stole his credentials and amazingly sold two houses through his real estate agent. He rushed home and prevented the sale of his second home from being finalized. Australian Federal Police and overseas law enforcement agencies will investigate the complex scam, which is considered the first of its kind in Australia. It is alleged scammers had stolen the man's email account and personal property documents to sell the houses and funnel cash into Chinese bank accounts. Investigating agencies admit the scammers hoodwinked both the selling agents and the government, and said they had enough information to satisfy regulatory requirements. The police did not rule out if the scammers had links to the man."
Re:This is a non-story. (Score:5, Insightful)
this is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
>>You would think that a court of law would need to be consulted and signatures would have to be issued and compared, at least through the mail.
Theoretically that is what notaries and escrow is all about. Whatever notary signed off on this should lose their license. If it wasn't notarized, then the escrow company for approving a sale without notarized documents. I'm also kind of surprised the real estate agent never tried to call the guy, even if he was overseas.
Re:This is a non-story. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm wondering what happens now - does he make a claim on his insurance for a stolen house (and land)? Do the new owners lose their money/house?
I'm sure the previously requested link will clarify all this because it's obviously something that happens all the time.
Re:This is a non-story. (Score:3, Insightful)
does he make a claim on his insurance for a stolen house (and land)?
I would be amazed if such a clause or coverage existed in a homeowner's policy.
At the same time, I think I hear insurance companies pounding away on their keyboards getting ready to introduce it as a $120/year extra...or whatever would be reasonable, never owned a home to know what the costs and whatnot are.
That's nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the US criminals stole not the House, but the whole Executive Branch thanks to hacked voting machines! (allegedly)
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if a reasonable man would have suspected it was stolen. This law protects the innocent, such as this case, someone who purchased a house through a legitimate real estate agent.
If you buy a DVD player from the back of a pub and it turns out to be stolen, then you have to give it back and would be lucky not to be charged with being in reciept of stolen goods.
Re:Scares the hell out of me (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, so he still has the original Title Deed? Then the house was never properly sold and the Title Insurance company should be stuck with the bill. Under what system can a fake title, after being identified as a fake, survive? That completely defeats the purpose of a Title and Title Insurance. Responsibility for verifying the authenticity of a transaction must always lie with the actual parties to the transaction, not uninvolved third parties, even when one of the parties to the transaction purports to be the third party. To do otherwise creates perverse insensitives for the only parties capable of identifying fraud, the uninvolved third part can't identify it, before the fact, on account of never having the opportunity.
Re:Were I him, I would... (Score:2, Insightful)
As much as I find the concept of pyrrhic victory romantic, that's probably the fastest way to have your case ignored by all and sundry. We have reasonably tight gun control in Australia, and assuming you can even get one, waving it around will get you looked down on by pretty much everyone in civilised society. Even your greatest weapon in this situation, the sensationalist media, will turn on you.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you own land? I do. I have multiple pieces of land in three states.
No..you don't own your land.
Think I'm wrong? Don't pay your property taxes and we'll see who really owns the land. The government simply lets you use their land until they think they need to take it back.
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's the most dumb system i've ever heard off.
Giving the purchasers back the money(through gov. funds or such) is a good thing.
Letting the "new owners" keep someone's house, that might have big sentimental value is insane.
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was the buyer in the US and had this happen to me, the first place I would go would be to my title insurance company. Not sure it would work, but after the police, that is were I would go.
I had the understanding that the property concidered stolen property and must be returned to the orginal owner. However, I have seen articles of similar thefts happening in the US where the buyer kept the property, But these were news accounts and you know how reliable they can be.
buyer should lose (Score:5, Insightful)
The owner can't protect himself against fraudulent sales because he doesn't know a transaction is taking place. The buyer, on the other hand, knows that a transaction is taking place and that there is a certain risk that it's fraudulent. The buyer has all the power and information necessary to make sure it's not a fraudulent transaction and to insure against it. That's why the buyer should lose the house and it should go back to its original owner. The buyer should have title insurance (either privately purchased or through the state).
If you don't place the responsibility on the buyer, no party who knows about the transaction has any interest in preventing fraud: the real estate agent gets his cut, the buyer gets a cheap house, and the con men get their money. In that situation, they can all ignore signs of fraud to the maximum degree that they can plausibly get away with.
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
you owe money to the government, if you don't pay it, they take your stuff and sell it to pay your debt.
Don't pay any of your other taxes and you'll find your assets being sold, do you not 'own' those either?
How about when you don't pay your private debts; one of your creditors gets you made bankrupt and your stuff gets liquidated? did you not own any of that either?
If you don't pay your debts, your assets get sold to pay them. The only thing special in regard to the government there is that they can create the debts for you to pay (i.e. taxes).
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if a reasonable man would have suspected it was stolen. This law protects the innocent, such as this case, someone who purchased a house through a legitimate real estate agent.
That's not protecting the innocent. Why not give the BUYERS their money back from the fund, then you don't have to bother with trying to find the 'fair compensation' value. It's right there on the bill of sale. What about the guy who comes home to find find his house effectively GONE? One could say that the person who literally had their home stolen from them might be a bit more of a victim than the person who just needs a mortgage reversed (Paper)
This guy (well, assuming this happened to someone where it was a residence) will have to find a new home, hope it's near his job, move his belongings, etc. Oh, and now he is a VERY motivated buyer so good luck getting any sort of a deal.
The problem with this method is that for it to be 'fair' to the original owner, you would have to pay back a lot of costs in addition to the value of the stolen property. That doesn't even get into the emotional attachment. I sold a home I put a lot of work into years ago and I still have fond memories of it. I'd be pissed if the place I remodeled by hand was stolen from me.
Just void the sale paperwork and let the companies who screwed up in the first place (Notary, Realtor, Bank, etc) foot the bill like they should.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
since again taxes apply to transactions, not to possessions.
By definition, property taxes apply to possessions. Just because you wish we didn't have them doesn't mean they're not really taxes. I wish I didn't have to pay FICA and income taxes, but I don't deny that they're a tax rather than proof that I'm a slave who's owned by the government or something equally absurd.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Through eminent domain, in which case they still have to pay you what a judge deems to be fair market value.
He wasn't talking about that. In any event, the power of eminent domain, which was intended by the Founders to be used to build public works, has been reinterpreted by the Supreme Court to allow for the transfer of private property to private hands, if for no other reason than that the new owners may create more tax revenue. That's just twisted, but it's the law now.
Regardless, in many counties in the U.S., which is the bulk of them since they're supported by real estate taxes, if you don't pay said taxes they can and will sell your property out from under you in order to recover the value of the taxes. That's not ownership, by any stretch of the imagination. You are merely the steward of your (ahem) "property" until such time as you fail to pay your property tax, or someone in power decides they really want your space.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing special in regard to the government there is that they can create the debts for you to pay (i.e. taxes).
Yes, and that's the key difference! You pretty much shot the rest of your argument down by pointing this out. By having the ability to levy taxes, and the power to force the sale of property to recover those taxes, the government ultimately has effective ownership of your "property". Ownership is a matter of control, and if you don't control something you really don't own it.
I don't know if you've ever been in the position of nearly losing your home to that, but it's a frightening process, and it's then that you realize how little you matter, how little they care, how little control you actually have.
How we managed to let this state of affairs become law is beyond me, but we did.
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:3, Insightful)
yup, and also these scammers needed to sell fast, so they likely sold his house for a much lower price than what its worth. So the buyers get a really sweet deal for a house out of it. The bankers make money. The only one that gets screwed is the victim of the fraud.
Giving the guy his house back and refunding the buyers, would inconvenience the buyer and the bank. But this would be a good thing, I'd think. Then the bank and the buyer would be extra careful to check to make sure this isn't fraud.
But I guess the government doesn't want to interfere with the banks unless its to throw a bunch of money at them.
Re:buyer should lose (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why the buyer should lose the house and it should go back to its original owner.
No, the reason the buyer(s) should lose the house to the original and current owner is that no property can legitimately change ownership without the current owner's consent. The legitimate owner of the house was not involved in the fraudulent "sale", ergo any transfer of ownership is void.
You make good points, but the ultimate reason the would-be buyer(s) cannot take possession of the house is that the house was never sold to them (i.e. by the owner) in the first place.