The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation has issued a notable ruling regarding allegations of odometer rollback, which frequently arise in second-hand vehicle sales. The High Court stated that the fact that a vehicle's past mileage records could have been checked by the buyer cannot be considered sufficient on its own to close a fraud investigation against a seller without further inquiry.
According to the case file, B.D. reached an agreement with a seller company for a vehicle stated to have 65 thousand kilometers. After the notary sale, B.D. learned that the vehicle's actual mileage was 251 thousand. When he could not reach a resolution after speaking with the seller company's manager, he applied to the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The prosecutor's office decided that there were no grounds for prosecution, citing the reason that the buyer could have checked the mileage records himself. An objection filed against this decision was also rejected by the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. Subsequently, the Ministry of Justice ensured the process was moved to the Court of Cassation with a request for the decision to be overturned for the benefit of the law.
COURT OF CASSATION: INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION
The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation pointed out that the investigation in the file was incomplete. The ruling emphasized that the vehicle's inspection records should be obtained, the statement of the expert who examined the vehicle on the day of the sale should be taken, the market value of the vehicle at the time of the sale should be determined, and a technical expert report should be prepared regarding how the odometer rollback process was carried out.
In its decision, the Chamber did not directly conclude that "the crime of fraud has been committed." However, it ruled that the "buyer could have checked" approach is not sufficient on its own to close the file. According to the Court of Cassation, it must be comprehensively investigated whether the odometer rollback could have been detected with a simple check and whether the element of deception was present in the incident.
The ruling stated that the justification in the previous assessment, which claimed that "the act attributed to the suspect remained at the level of a simple lie" and that the dispute "stemmed from the delivery of defective goods," was erroneous. The Court of Cassation found it contrary to the law that the objection was rejected when the investigation should have been expanded.
Accepting the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation for an overturning for the benefit of the law, the 11th Criminal Chamber unanimously overturned the relevant decision of the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. The decision stands out as an important assessment in criminal investigations regarding the sale of vehicles with rolled-back odometers, indicating that the buyer's duty of inspection does not automatically eliminate the allegation of deception against the seller.
News Source: 12punto
