Slashdot Mirror
Criminals Steal House Thanks To Hacked Email
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."
Because it's insanely complex and stealthy?
The fact that property of this value can be transferred without the owner's knowledge and he has to go to the australian government in the hopes of recovering full value for the home is shameful. 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.
Please point us to an article where someones house was sold by hacking their e-mail account.
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.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
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.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Here in the US criminals stole not the House, but the whole Executive Branch thanks to hacked voting machines! (allegedly)
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.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
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.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
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.
Whichever way you put it, someone gets screwed, in other words, but with property sales like this...there's really no other way you can do it. If you let the title/deed go to the purchaser, yeah, the person whose property was sold is out of a dwelling; but if you kick the purchaser out and return title to the rightful owner, well, what happens if the purchaser sold their old dwelling at the same time? They're out of a dwelling as well. It's a no-win situation as long as the system can be engineered.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
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.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
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.
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.
surely the fair return to the 'status quo ante' is for the government to restore the money to the *buyers* and the property to the *rightful owner*. The buyers can they buy another property, if they wish; they are back where they started.
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.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.