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."
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 ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
There is far more to it than email, "It is alleged scammers had stolen Mildenhall's email account and personal and property documents". There had to direct proximate contact, they obtained personal and property documents. The email angle seems to be more of a beat up by ZDnet rather than being of any real significance.
Investor generally keep property titles in a private safe or a bank safety deposit box but, he didn't notice them gone.
Hmm, strange had investments house and his agent was not renting them and the owner didn't notice the missing rent income if the agent was renting them. The whole thing stinks, from the owner, to the agent and beyond. It will be interesting to see how the case pans out over the next few months.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
I have a copy of the title that the state keeps on file for my house. That's not my point. There's (supposed to be) layers of security in place to prevent exactly this kind of stuff from happening. In particular, if you're selling a property and you can't come in person to sign for it, you need to visit a notary near you who is supposed to verify your identify and notarize the documents. An escrow company is only supposed to close after all forms have been signed and notarized.
That's why I said that some notary and/or the escrow company ought to get into trouble for this. That's the only value they really provide for the rather exorbitant amounts of money they charge.
Re: (Score:2)
But, under US law, this type of fraud would leave the buyers with nothing and I'd still be the undisputed owner.
The buyers would have been covered by their title insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Through eminent domain, in which case they still have to pay you what a judge deems to be fair market value.
Re: (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 taxe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: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: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:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
A government without the ability to levy taxes and the power to force the sale of property to recover those taxes would be entirely inneffectual.
I suppose what I'm complaining about is the way such sales are handled, at least in my experience.
It almost happened to my father. He owned his home: paid off his thirty year mortgage on time and in full. But he became ill one year, and racked up some substantial medical bills, and couldn't pay all of his property tax. He was so sick at the time that he didn't even know that. Fortunately, I had financial power-of-attorney and was going through his records, and discovered (only a couple of days in advance) that his house was scheduled to be sold (the county provided no notice, naturally, I was just lucky enough to figure it out on my own.)
So on the morning of the yearly tax sale, I went to the county seat and attempted to speak with one of the city attorneys about the matter. She was about the coldest human being I've ever encountered, and told me literally, "pay up or lose the house, and don't bother me again." "Civil servant" my ass, and all I wanted was a week 'til some receivables came in. I had brought letters from his physicians documenting his medical condition, but this woman wouldn't even look at them, eventually ordered me out of her office because she had "more important matters to attend to."
So, I went downstairs to the cashier, and found a line of people that stretched down the hall, most of whom were in line to buy my father's house for the price of six month's property taxes. I elbowed my way to the head of the line and handed the cashier a certified check for the remaining balance (flattening my checking account in the process.) I heard a collective groan behind me, as a couple dozen vultures turned around and left because I'd beaten them to it.
A few years before that, he'd had that audacity to ask the county to reappraise his home because he felt they'd valued it too high (and, of course, his taxes were based upon that valuation.) The assessor came out and assessed it about $20,000 higher and told him, "that'll teach you."
Frankly, I'd much rather deal with the Internal Revenue Service than any lower-level taxing body. Yes, the IRS takes a lot of deserved heat, but they do have rules and they follow them, and they'd rather get the cash, even if they don't get it right away. Matter of fact, Dad ended up owing them some money as well, but when I sent them medical documentation and explained the situation, they were willing to write it all off.
When it comes to real estate taxes, don't get behind because you'll likely lose a whole lot more. The problem is likely to get worse, as our local governments start to have more and more financial problems, and start squeezing people even more than they already do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Scammers had victim's e-mail address and the trust of agent that they were the person they pretended to be; it's easy enough to send an address/telephone change notice by e-mail that the agent then will consider the current valid details. And when called the scammer answers. Not likely agent will be able to recognise the voice being wrong, especially when the person answering the phone has the correct Australian accent.
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely agent will be able to recognise the voice being wrong
That really depends. If the agent has few contacts, and talks to this landowner infrequently, then it's possible; but, if they're busy enough to talk to many people (but not so busy that they have to delegate), his/her ear will key in on a certain tonality and cadence with a familiar contact. To wit, if you have a set of family members that you talk to with some regularity, and one calls you with a stuffy nose, you would notice it fairly quickly, no?
Re: (Score:2)
"answering the phone has the correct Australian accent."
Really? Don't there live home-owner over there with an other accent?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect different states have different laws. I sold a house in Tennessee after I had relocated to California. I never saw the buyer and certainly didn't attend the closing. I think I might have assigned a power of attorney over to the real estate agent, but it was long ago so I don't really remember whether I did or not.
I seem to remember a scam in Canada regarding selling real estate that sounded the same as this Australian deal. Apparently legal structures are different, and with different outcome
Re: (Score:2)
That was probably where the fax came in - a system I wish would die..
I'm curious to know how they got into his email though. Was it a weak password or was he scammed by them and they guessed it/were given it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that sounds completely foolproof!
Re: (Score:2)
Governments log all your data... but when data is lost, you're on your own?
If all this happened through the internet, then surely those massive anti-terrorist / anti-cybercrime servers that log everything can be of some assistance here?
(Especially if the data was stolen from a government server where all our personal information is stored... not that it happened this time, but in the future that is certainly a possibility too).
So what's the deal here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Does the man lose his home? He never sold the property and I don't see why he should be giving it up.
These kind of articles never include a followup on what hapenned.
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what's the deal here. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in the US the unknowing buyers would be compensated by their title insurance company and the seller would get his house back. This is exactly why we have title insurance on real estate transactions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this the whole purpose of title insurance? The buyer's title insurance company would pay the buyer back, and the original owner keeps the house?
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: (Score:2)
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.
In fact, the buyer could hire some Nigerian scammers to sell the house, assuming the buyer really wanted it.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
well, what happens if the purchaser sold their old dwelling at the same time?
Crime sucks. The owner of the building pays for vandalism if they don't have insurance. Not that I agree with it, but if a fund was established for this sort of thing...
If you are trying to be nice, then give the buyer 10% over the cost of the house so they can move. They wouldn't have 'put down roots' there yet like the original owner likely did.
Even if you don't do that, there IS an avenue for the buyer. Sue the realtor/attor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The wiki is misleading. It lists Washington for instance, but fails to note that only 3500 parcels are under the Torrens system in Washington, everything else is in the normal system. Basically, the Torrens system is a nightmare, every thing that is seen as 'wrong' with the chain of title system is trivially handled by Title Insurance, which, unlike regular insurance, as it's insuring against the past, can (and does) take significant measures to identify and cure issues before a real estate deal is finalize
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Legal to keep stolen property (Score:2)
.. in Australia? That is essentially what happened. They stole his house and sold it. What if it were a car or a computer? If thieves can steal things and "sell" them to someone else who gets to keep it, something is very seriously wrong with the legal system, there.
Re: (Score:2)
If thieves can steal things and "sell" them to someone else who gets to keep it, something is very seriously wrong with the legal system, there.
Yes, the US system is much better, where the government ends up seizing the property and NO ONE gets to keep it.
Re: (Score:2)
"independently assessed ". That is true, but the figure won't be much different and it will be correlated with the market value.
Re: (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.
Dude a DVD player is $35 brand new! (Score:2)
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.
If you buy a DVD player from the back of a pub, you have to give back your remaining brain cell, because it turns out that your brain is faulty. You can buy a damn DVD player from K-Mart for $35 (Aussie Dollars). I'm sure there's even cheaper out there.
I do understand the point you're making but your example's a bit dated.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If you buy a DVD player from the back of a pub, you have to give back your remaining brain cell, because it turns out that your brain is faulty. You can buy a damn DVD player from K-Mart for $35 (Aussie Dollars). I'm sure there's even cheaper out there.
I do understand the point you're making but your example's a bit dated.
A fool and his money are soon parted. Nigerian scammers still make a fortune, people still believe that they are being sent that hot naked photo of Actress XYZ, greed clouds many normally rational humans, take someone a little below average and you have a free ATM. I bet if I tried I could find people in a pub to buy your $35 DVD player for $50 and they would think they got a bargain.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about the innocence of the original owner? Losing your home is really not funny, even if you get money with which you could buy a new one. (Well, apparently this guy had at least two houses, so it's not quite as bad for him, but the principle still holds.)
Having just read that it was "investment property", the guy was apparently a real estate investor, so he didn't lose his own home and I'm not feeling quite as sorry for him anymore. Still, better checks to prevent this kind of thing would be nice.
Re: (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 literall
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Buyer was convinced the deal was legit. Even the Australian government was obviously convinced it was legit, as property ownership is registered by the government.
You as buyer go to a property agent and tell them "hey you have this flat for sale, I'm interested, I want to buy it". Then property agent will do the paperwork for you, ask a notary, whatever. You may not even meet the current owner in person for such a deal (well possible with investment properties). As long as this agent comes with the proper
Re: (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: (Score:2)
I think his point was that leaving the innocent puchaser holding the bag was dumb.
I agree that giving the property back and compensating the purchaser would be better than letting the purchaser keep the property and compensating the owner, but both are substantially better than the present system of giving it back to the owner and leaving the purchaser out of pocket, especially as far as I can see (in th UK) the police put a lot more effort in to tracing a stolen vehicle and siezing it back for the owner th
Re: (Score:2)
If you bought it without the knowledge that it was stolen, then yes. Any other system is kinda retarded ... it's not fair to penalise the legitimate and honest purchaser of property of their purchase if they bought it in good faith and without any reason to believe it was stolen.
The retarded part is that someone can sell a priceless family heirloom to someone else and, as long as the buyer thinks it's legit, there's nothing anybody can do to get their priceless family heirloom back other than try to re-purchase it from the buyer. However, now that they know it's priceless...
Re: (Score:2)
Er what? The law we are talking about here concerns only real property (i.e. land, not physical items/chattels/posessions). At common law, whether that be in Australia or the US, real property and chattels are two completely different paradigms. So bringing 'priceless family heirlooms' into it is completely irrelevant - the law we are discussing does not apply to such things.
(I suppose you could argue that a house or land that has been in the family for generations is an 'heirloom', but I don't think that's
Re: (Score:2)
Next time we'll wait with article until there is adequate follow-up, and then we'll have comments who sound like this: "Why is it posted now, this was first posted months ago on site ***. Bad not-uptodate /."
Commission (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. XKCD! (Score:3, Funny)
You can add house to that list.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, I was saving it for the next Google story. Bastard!
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This would not have happened if the new Slashdot Law on Correct Smiley Placement was already in effect :( <- correct
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It wasn't hacked voting machines. It was poorly designed paper ballots.
Wait. You are talking about the 2000 election, right?
Yes, and I believe the perpetrator was a guy named Chad. But it's okay ... they caught the bastard and hung him.
Scares the hell out of me (Score:2)
This does, although I am still not sure how the scammers got hold of the original certificate of title. Here in WA this is still a piece of paper and the settlement agent must have it to complete the transaction.
It can be replaced although it is extremely difficult to do so (trust me, I lost one).
Re: (Score:2)
But there in lies the problem. The settlement agents (realtors) which had the power to sell the house (possibly also the title papers) were duped by the scammer, it's quite easy to see how this happened, scammer breaks into email account, scammer initiates contact with realtors, scammer instructs
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
When my parents paid off thier mortgage, they never actually closed the mortgage.
The banks still had the title deed. The bank had to keep that document safe (part of the contact). And they deferred the Stamp Duty. When they eventually sold up and moved (Vic to NSW), THEN they retreived the title from the bank. No title deed, no actual sale.
When (if) I buy property back in Oz, I'll have a Conveyancing Lawyer checking the title. They also check liens and (AFAIR) planning issues that might sneek up on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so he still has the original Title Deed? Then the house was never properly sold
Especially since no one can prove that he received money for the house, either.
First time? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Horsehockey, This sort of thing has happened many times before in this country. The problem happens because once it hits the registry the registry cannot legally be altered. So if the buyer acted in good faith it is up to the (accidental) seller to recover the funds from the crook. It doesn't happen often because most people are aware of it.
So the "seller"/victim has to constantly monitor the registry or hire someone to do so? I like the "buyer beware" system much better. At least they know they're buying.
Have we ruled out Carmen Sandiego as the culprit (Score:3, Funny)
...and they go back to e-mail after all that (Score:2, Interesting)
and have issued email warnings to all licensees in the state...
Didn't they learn anything? So they still fell back to e-mail as the official line of communication? With people like that running regulatory agencies, it's no wonder our world is so screwed up.
forged signature (Score:2, Informative)
Who showed up at closing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some insight into conveyancing: (Score:4, Interesting)
Some insight from a UK perspective anyway. I work for a fairly large firm of solicitors in the UK who specialize in property/real estate. Here's a few worrying bits of information:
We are required to have ID on the file by law, we are not required to check it in any way whatsoever.
If the vendor/purchaser is long distance from our offices we will accept emailed/faxed copies of all paperwork (INCLUDING ID) within certain easily restrictions such as certified copies, see next point.
We will create a certified copy of ID from anyone that walks in from the street which is basically a legal way of saying we've had sight of the original. If someone was worried about sending their passport to us by post they could get a copy and take it to a local firm of solicitors/lawyers/attorneys and have them stamp it, we would then accept that by fax or email as if it were the original document. This process is usually done by whoever the office assistant/intern happens to be and they will certainly not know how to check the document to make sure it is an original. In my experience they tend to be more worried about whether or not they will be able to make the photocopier work.
We are never required to speak to our client by phone or in person, some simply prefer to do business by email for whatever reason. (sometimes language/accent barriers - communicating via google translate is an experience for sure)
We are not required to check signatures beyond a casual glance to make sure they look similar to the one shown on the ID and this is usually not done. If the document is signed that's good enough for most of the solicitors I've worked for.
Posting ac for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your firm needs to tighten up its money laundering procedures - that is an insufficient level of client due diligence. If you are not confident your client is who he says he is then you should not act. If something were to go wrong, your firm would face civil proceedings and it (and potentially you personally) could face an LCS investigation or even prosecution.
Title insurance (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about Australia, but in the USA, there is this concept of title insurance. A "sale" like that in the story is invalid because the title was stolen by fraudulent means. So the title is effectively no good. The title insurance (which is there to protecy the buyer with respect to defects in title) needs to pay out to the buyer for their loss and the owner keeps his home. There are already existing cases in the USA where home sales were voided due to improper or fraudulent title. In one of them, the "sale" was reversed 8 years after it was finalized, all because the seller's title was fraudulently obtained. And this was 30+ years ago, before email. The fact that email was involved should make it easier to void the sale.
Not the first time to happen in Australia (Score:3, Interesting)
Real estate agents in Australia are a cowboys compared to the agents I dealt with in the US and yes, I have experience with both.
Re:This is a non-story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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:4, Informative)
Thats is what makes this so interesting.
Every small move in Australia is watched over many interconnected databases. Mostly for tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_point_check [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Australia is known to have cleaned up its tax, banking and property sales with complex ID tracking at a points along every transaction.
Thats is what makes this so interesting.
Not really. If you'd read the article, you'd have seen the sentence "It is understood the real estate agency did not request a 100-point identity check and was not required to do so." They didn't bypass the 100-point ID check.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory a bank at both ends should have seen something???
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not so sure you appreciate what the 100 point check means (or maybe I missed the sarcasm). Various types of ID are given points that's all it means. Nothing more.
A Photoshopped Birth Cert is worth 70 points, and a license, which can be obtained with a photoshopped Birth Cert and a driving test, is worth 40 points. With just this (and maybe a couple of photoshopped utility bills) you can open bank accounts, register company and pretty much anything you like.
There is no 'interconnected databases' at least non
Re: (Score:2)
Australia is known to have cleaned up its tax, banking and property sales with complex ID tracking at a points along every transaction. Thats is what makes this so interesting. Every small move in Australia is watched over many interconnected databases. Mostly for tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_point_check [wikipedia.org]
You make it sound like a super secure big brother system. An expired passport and a student card gets you over the 100 point threshold.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants this in their backyard again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Israel_ [wikipedia.org]–_New_Zealand_spy_scandal
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do the new owners lose their money/house?
Australia has Torrens Title [wikipedia.org], so once the new owners are registered they have an indefeasible title to the property (i.e. the fact that it was sold by fraud does not render the assignment void). Whether they (or more likely their agents) own the previous registered proprietor any money depends on the facts of the case.
Re:This is a non-story. (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the wikipedia article fraud nullifies that at least in the state of Victoria. They used a forged title dead (abait unknowinglly though it matters not) to get the transfer registered. Hence they fraudulantly transfered the title, and in Victoria it would be null and void. I am going to assume that it is similar in Western Austriala, but I have not evidence that it is.
Does Aus have Title Insurance? (Score:3, Informative)
Here in the US, it's normal for a home buyer to buy title insurance (and for mortgage companies to require it if they're lending money) which insures that the buyer doesn't lose (much) money if the title is bad. There are all sorts of reasons this can happen - deliberate forgery isn't the only one, though it's not unpopular, as are "selling the same house to multiple buyers", etc.
The Wikipedia article on Torrens Title looks like the state provides the title insurance in case they've allowed fraudulent tran
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/09/14/0144207/Criminals-Steal-House-Thanks-To-Hacked-Email [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QaH0uPlp24 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But it was a Nigerian prince! Really. No one expects a Nigerian prince to be dishonest. Just like no one expects a Spanish inquisition... Sorry, off topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately quite a few Aussies who made a fortune in the mining industry also fall into this category.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be:
Everyone knows that Nigerian scammers can't spell, and use English grammar incorrectly.
or:
Everyone knows that Nigerian scammers can neither spell nor use English grammar correctly.
Congratulations on sticking to the age-old slashdot tradition of making a spelling or grammar mistake in any post referring to spelling or grammar.
Re: (Score:2)
No, please elaborate.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Bought a house two years ago. We have the paper deeds. They trump all electronic records (the conveyancer was a family friend, so she explained it all). I call bullshit.
Most people / mortgage companies store their paper deeds in a secured area, like a safe deposit box, that's all. The land registry's electronic records are only concerned with certain details and are not a definitive legal ruling. And the land registry keep paper copies too, why do you think you have to sign so many forms?
I'm not saying
Re: (Score:2)
Whereabouts in the UK? Remember that Scotland's land law is completely different to England's.