Fraud Not Theft -

No information contained within this site or supplied by Claims Management & Adjusting Ltd constitutes legal advice.

Consider the following:

A motor dealer (vehicle vendor) is approached by a plausible criminal – such is the nature of those practising fraud/deception
A price is agreed for a vehicle and the criminal pays by credit card (CC)
Unknown to all but the criminal, the card is being used dishonestly – for example, it may belong to another.
The dealer is satisfied that the payment method (CC) is valid, good, and accepts this. No alarm is raised, the dealer hands over the car, keys, documents etc.
A FRAUD is committed

It is here that the differentiation between FRAUD and THEFT may be telling.

With THEFT, there is no ‘giving’ of the property (vehicle) and with THEFT, the offence is commonly promptly identified by the victim – their car has been stolen, it was nto where they left it but has been taken without their consent. The taking is reported to the police immediately.
With FRAUD, the victim, unaware they have been tricked, willingly parts with the vehicle (keys & documentation), believing a valid transaction has occurred.

To return to the above continuity:

6. The criminal knows it is only a matter of time before their fraudulent conduct will come to light. They advertise the vehicle for sale, and may even have done so whilst negotiating the purchase. The criminal is unlikely to want to possess the vehicle under its original identity for long, but to convert this ill-gotten gain to cash.

Often, a STOLEN vehicle has its identity changed to dupe a potential purchaser. With FRAUD, the criminal has less immediate concern about the vehicle identity and can concentrate on disguising their idetity – they have a ‘window of opportunity‘ in which to sell the vehicle … it can be disposed of on its original VRM before the deception is discovered and the vehicle is circulated ‘wanted’ – placed to the PNC LoS register.

7. An innocent purchaser (IP), possibly living many miles from the dealership, in another county, considers the purchase. The vendor has the documents (albeit not in their name – they may claim to be a trader), the keys, and service history.

8. The criminal vendor may agree to meet the buyer halfway between them – this can suit criminals, adding to the confusion by taking advantage of police cross-border difficulties (who does, or can be troubled to do, what?):

A constabulary has the original taking by deception crime, the offence of FRAUD recorded
The transaction will occur in another jurisdiction
The buyer may live within the jurisdiction of a third constabulary

9. A due diligence check of the vehicle by the IP, using a publicly available service, reveals no STOLEN marker, the vehicle is not on finance (it was obtained by CC) , not a previous total loss, and not stolen.

- - If finance fraud is associated, a check should reveal the presence of the agreement, which the vendor will need to explain!
  - Never agree to rely upon a vendor’s enquiry – it may pre-date the agreement, have been altered or be a forgery.

10. Satisfied, the IP, unaware the vehicle was obtained from another by FRAUD, hands over their hard-earned money, commonly cash is demanded, and should be avoided!

Days, weeks, months may pass with the IP using the car day in, day out. They may drive past ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras frequently, none of which alert to a problem. Then one day …

11. The CC company learns that the card was used FRAUDULENTLY. Possibly, the CC company promptly removed the purchase funds from the dealer’s account.

12. The dealer, alerted to their loss of dunds, reports the matter to the police.

- The motor dealer likely has no insurance for FRAUD – they may well have had cover had the vehicle been STOLEN

From here on, things start to go awry …

13. The police, local to the dealership, on receipt of the notification:

a. record the crime perpetrated against the dealership

b. place a LoS (lost or stolen) marker against the VRM (vehicle registration mark) on the PNC (police national computer)

This may be the extent of their activity; there may or may not be an investigation of the FRAUD but the police (above) have taken action.

14. Miles away, unaware of the development, the IP, driving their regular route, passes an ANPR camera which had previously ignored their VRM but, due to the new PNC LoS entry against the VRM, now alerts

15. The police covering the location of the ANPR camera, which may be within a 4th jurisdiction, respond to the ANPR alert and descend upon the vehicle and driver (IP) who may be:

- Perplexed, distressed
- Arrested
- Held in a cell

16. The IP is released, bailed, and the vehicle is retained.

- The IP likely has no insurance for the ‘FRAUD’ (they may well have had cover in the event the car was ‘stolen’ from them)

17. The police resources associated with the ‘alert’ and seizure are not insignificant; respond, arrest, incarcerate, bail and take custody of the vehicle.

18. The IP now has ‘issues’ with the seizing constabulary (possibly their local force); why have they done this? Is it right … where is ‘my’ car?

19. The police seizing the car and arresting the IP may (or likely not) record the taking of the IP’s monies as a crime, as FRAUD. However, the purchase was not on their ‘section’, not within their jurisdiction – the FRAUD occurred elsewhere. The police may, refer the IP to the constabulary in whose jurisdiction the purchase took place or to ‘ActionFraud’ (ReportFraud as of 2026).

20. The seizing constabulary will then arrange for the vehicle to be passed to the constabulary, recording the original (FRAUD) offence or directly to the original loser, the dealer victim (at ‘1’ above)

21. It appears, from a police perspective, the status quo is restored; the dealership has the car, the original crime, a negative, has been addressed by the recovery, a positive.

But what of the IP and their monies?

In our experience, the IP is ignored, treated differently and on occasions either provided no assistance or incorrect information – likely through ignorance, on occasions dismissively, without care or consideration.

A. The dealership was the subject of a FRAUD, and so was the IP. Why is one (the dealership) assisted, their crime recorded and acted upon, the other (IP) not?

B. Does the PNC accurately reflect the crime or is LoS interpreted as ‘the VRM is STOLEN’ (it was not)?

But possibly more seriously, as they have potential financial ramifications upon the IP and the constabulary:

C. Why have the seizing police engaged in what appears to be little more than a repossession service for the dealership and

D. On what (lawful) basis did they take possession of the car AND pass it to another (constabulary or original victim); why not leave it with the IP?

We raised these concerns years ago. The offences above are FRAUD, yet the terminology, such as LoS (on PNC) leads an officer’s mind toward ‘THEFT’. The dealership may consider the car was ‘STOLEN’. The police may believe that title to the property cannot pass – a civil consideration relating to STOLEN property enshrined in NEM vs. Jones. Or officers may give the situation little thought but consdiered this appeared correct in the circumstances.

But should the police make such a decision? It appears, on occasions, IP’s are misled or given insufficient information to make an informed decision. People in possession of property obtained unlawfully, in particular innocent purchasers, tend to believe the police, have respect and confidence in their word – they are told the vehicle was ‘stolen’, it belongs to another. End of story. But is it?

Is there a need to seize such vehicles in the above circumstances? PACE allows for the vehicle to be left with an innocent purchaser, on condition that they do not alter or dispose of the vehicle.

Having elected to take the vehicle into their custody, a constabulary could engage the Police Property Act (PPA) 1897 section 1 of which reads:

Where any property has come into the possession of the police in connection with their investigation of a suspected offence a court of summary jurisdiction may, on the application, either by an officer of police or by a claimant of the property make an order for the delivery of the property to the person appearing to the magistrate or court to be the owner thereof, or if the owner, cannot be ascertained, make such order with respect to the property as to the magistrate or court may seem meet.

But this is costly, time-consuming. Furthermore, as above, likely the IP simply believed and accepted the police account, dropped the matter and took the loss on the chin.

NOTE: the vehicle was never STOLEN therefore, NEM vs. Jones does NOT apply. The vehicle was taken by FRAUD.

There is an argument that the title CAN pass where the crime is that of FRAUD. There is the ‘window of opportunity‘ (above); the period between disposal by the crook and reporting of the crime which may work in favour of the IP. A relevant Judgement is that of Lewis v Avery [1971] 3 All ER 907. The pertinent dates are:

Date 1: the vehicle is acquired from the victim by FRAUD
Date 2: the vehicle is sold to an IP
Date 3: the victim discovers & reports the crime to the police

Simply put, if ‘2’ occurs before ‘3’, the title may pass to the IP. Every event should be considered on its facts.