12 ms·

> Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it. That's nuts. Why isn't it the case that the

> Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it. That's nuts. Why isn't it the case that the person who failed to properly vet the seller is out of £131,000 and the house? So I can "buy" a local mansion and then say "oops, I didn't know this random guy didn't own it. Oh well."

sofixa 5y ago
In France it's the notary's job ( who are the only ones who can validate a sale) to ensure that the seller is who they say they are, and that they do actually own the land/house/apartment. Wonder how that works across the Channel and whose responsibility it was.
- lbriner 5y ago
  It is the same with a Solicitor but if they followed the correct process and the problem was actually with, say, the DVLA who issued a driving licence in the wrong name, I'm not sure who is liable for the error.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    Why would you use a driver's license when everyone can have a digital ID card? In Belgium the notary will always ask for your digital ID card.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Plenty of folks haven’t updated, or don’t like dealing with it, or ‘lost it’ or whatever. Most people doing notary/certification on stuff like this are used to that kind of situation, so someone having an acceptable but not ideal ID method isn’t going to slow this process down.
      - koonsolo 5y ago
        In Belgium, it's obligatory to carry your ID card everywhere when you are older than 15. So not having it is not allowed. I would be very surprised if a notary wouldn't demand it. They would not put their own job on the line for some idiot.
      - jve 5y ago
        In Latvia, nowdays you cant visit restaurant without a covid certificate verified by ID card or passport. Or to receive parcel at post office. Or when dealing with bank or gov. Etc. However I can do the following: use digital identification, that uses multiple factors along with an app, that requires using digital certificate from id card to setup. Afterwards its just my device and that app PIN that is required to impersonate me (well and semi-public national personal identification number)… this applies to almost all gov services with few exceptions like operations with property… Drivers license has been invalidated years ago as an identification mechanism. Let alone for dealing with property - notary is mandatory along with proper identification.
    - the_svd_doctor 5y ago
      Doesn't the UK _not_ have ID cards?
      - Wildgoose 5y ago
        We are looking at an example of just how bad a mismanaged central database can be. I don't want an ID card that gives someone the ability to delete my entire official existence; either accidentally - or deliberately.
        sofixa 5y ago
        In normal countries with central ID systems, nobody can delete your official existence. Worst case scenario is you're wrongly declared dead, but I don't see how "chaos and anarchy and just use random pieces of paper to prove who you are" avoids this problem.
        withinboredom 5y ago
        Your identity is on the chip and cryptographically signed on the card. Even if they delete your records, you can still prove you are who you say you are because it’s on the card. If they lost the records, that’s not your problem.
    - fy20 5y ago
      In the UK there is no official single form of ID. The way these things work is that you need a few letters confirming your address, then that's taken as gospel. A few years ago I was a "victim" of identify theft which happened as follows: Somebody ordered satellite TV to be installed at my house. A few days later they went to a phone shop and walked out with an iPhone in my name, using (I assume) the invoice from the TV service as proof of identity. They then did the same with a few other phone companies. The only way I found out about these was when they sent me bills demanding payment a month or so later :-) They also opened a bank account in my name, which I found out via a credit search, but the bank would not confirm or deny it as I was not the person who opened it. This last bit is more interesting as I believe it had a different address, but was in my name. Technically that is not fraud, as in the UK names are freely changeable without needing any official registration. I could go into a bank tomorrow and ask to open an account, saying my name is "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson" (the Prime Minister's full name) and that would be legal. The bank would probably send me away as I don't have any supporting evidence to prove that's my name, but there's ways around that. You can easily see how you could use this to have enough evidence to back up the claim that you are the owner of the property - especially if the property was vacant and you broke in so you could get the post (I assume the buyer was shown around before they bought it?).
- laurent92 5y ago
  The Notary in France doesn’t necessarily fully do this job. They have an obligation of means, ie check the last 30 years of ownership and permits, but there are many cracks in that system: - Double ownership for 30 years followed by a proof of ownership from the real, hidden one; - Or simply it is the notary’s understanding that there is no record past 12 years for example, and yet there is. If they have checked “the normal books”, their duty is fulfilled.
  - forty 5y ago
    Is there stories of people getting their property stolen this way? My guess is that in France, if such a story as the article happended, the buyer would be kicked out of the house (and probably lose their money stolen by the fraudsters) but maybe I'm completely wrong.
    - dolmen 5y ago
      I remember to have seen a story in France of someone that had bought a house, but someone else did break in and rented it to a family. The people in the house had a rental contract, so they had the immediate right to stay, even it the contract was invalid. Evicting them was a nightmare. Here is a similar story: https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abandonnes-leur-maison-familiale-est-occupee-illegalement-par-un-inconnu-depuis-des-mois-_54135-4864121_actu.Htm https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abando...
      - sofixa 5y ago
        But a notary isn't involved in renting, so there was noone to check.
      - forty 5y ago
        Absolutely. This is for secondary houses mostly though, it's slightly easier to expel those from your main accomodation. But I think in any case your ownership of the property is not challenged. It's "just" that you cannot use it, but eventually you can get it back.
- ElFitz 5y ago
  Don’t we have actual, physical, titles, tied to the property? Could someone actually sell a house without those?
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    Unless the house/land is not yet registered, I believe that the land registry is supposed to be the ultimate authority and deeds are just piece of papers. Ai think you can always argue ownership in a curt of law of course.
    - gpderetta 5y ago
      See this[1] thread on r/legaladviceUK. User pflurklurk is normally very knowledgeable of the UK legal system and probably a solicitor himself (although he claims to be just a random shitposter). [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/qkew77/is_a_property_transfer_done_fraudulently_through https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/qkew77/is_a_...
aclelland 5y ago
Yeah, that part confused me to. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a stolen xbox from some guy on a street corner and the Police find me with it, they'd not throw up their hands and say "oh well, I guess you own it now, on your way". I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.
- dtparr 5y ago
  I believe the 'quirk' here is that the fraud was able to get property ownership updated with the Land Registry, so the new owner is the official owner of record.
  - dgb23 5y ago
    So the Land Registry is at fault? Good luck...
  - thereddaikon 5y ago
    Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land if the government can just decide it belongs to someone else.
    - jopsen 5y ago
      Yeah, you don't truly own land, you pay property taxes, etc. It's more like you lease the land :)
    - codyb 5y ago
      Pretty much true everywhere. It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
      - H8crilA 5y ago
        Possession is a physical/real property of the universe. Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.
dmoy 5y ago
It depends on how Title law works in the jurisdiction. I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left holding the bag - the original homeowner would keep the property. It's one reason in the US that most property sales include a purchase of title insurance.
- lbriner 5y ago
  I'm not a lawyer but the article implies that once the title is transferred, the new owner owns it! There might be liability with the Solicitor or the Land Registry, otherwise it would appear to be incredibly unfair!
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    The article says "The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year." which tends to imply they have some liability.
    - pdmccormick 5y ago
      I wonder if that means they don't pay all that much compensation on a case by case basis, or if there isn't that much fraud occurring to begin with.
      - pmyteh 5y ago
        I suspect they'd rather you claimed against the fraudster or a solicitor, with the compensation fund as a backstop. If that is the case, it could be neither: just that most people get recompensed elsewhere.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    That's right, I think. The property can be recovered from the fraudster, but not from an innocent subsequent purchaser. There is at least some form of compensation scheme by the Land Registry. And 'selling on behalf of someone who isn't the actual owner' certainly can found a liability claim on the solicitor.
_0ffh 5y ago
Yeah, A gets scammed by B and C pays the price. If you can't get a hold on B, then clearly A should be the one all outta luck, not C. Absolutely insane!
so_throwaway 5y ago
You are confusing who actually owned it, or who morally owned it, with who legally owned it. The claim is not that, once the legal issues and the fraud get untangled, the buyer will be held to be the rightful owner. The claim is that AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it. They have written this article as though to suggest that this is final and the original owner has no recourse. That isn't the case. What is the case is that the police don't have a remit to investigate the fraudulent sale. If person A is listed in the registry (they 'legally own' the property) and person B isn't, the police will follow person A's instructions to remove person B from the property, but not vice versa.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it Not an expert on British law, but I don't think this is the case. The new owner owns it. Not temporarily. Fully, permanently and properly. The previous owner was fraudulently deprived of it, and can likely get damages from the parties who signed off on the conveyance. But I don't think they have the right to reverse the transaction against the new owner's will.
  - so_throwaway 5y ago
    If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim? The hubris of an internet commenter? Also, it's not surprising. It's unusual for a common law country. But in most jurisdictions, particularly those on statutory law, if the buyer is unrelated to the fraudster and is in possession, the register cannot be altered [1]. This comes, in most places, out of the land registry being a reaction to protracted property disputes. (Often violent.) [1] https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-property-fraud/ https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-propert...
anonAndOn 5y ago
In the US, the buyer is often required to purchase title insurance which would likely cover fraudulent transfer.[0] [0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/title_insurance.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/title_insurance.asp
- iammisc 5y ago
  The us doesn't have centralized land registries. While the counties record titles as a matter of convenience, the true title is determined by the courts. Other countries have centralized registries so that if the country's database says X piece of land is owned by Y, that's final. In the us it can be litigated and title insurance comes into play for the buyer who purchased it fraudulently.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    > The us doesn't have centralized land registries. Like any statement about the US, "it's complicated". For example, in Massachusetts there are two types of real estate: recorded and registered. See https://www.deeds.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-recorded-land-and-registered-land-in-massachusetts/ https://www.deeds.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-... for a quick rundown. In some cases, the property that goes with a single house will actually be made up of two bits of land, one of which is recorded and one of which is registered. In other cases it's all recorded or all registered. Now this is not a nationwide centralized registry, it is a state-wide registry within Massachusetts, and my understanding is that the sort of litigation you could get for recorded land does not happen for registered land, because transfer of registered land is already a Land Court decision. Key quote from the above link's description of registered land: As the current state of title is sequentially updated by the registration of future transactions, it embodies a certificate of title that not only evidences title, but in fact guarantees title and is subject only to the exceptions provided by statute and matters of federal law.
anonporridge 5y ago
Also, how does the seller disappear with that much money without being able to be IDed? That seems like a severe failure of the state. It almost makes me wonder if this is a semi common scam wealthy folks use to take poor people's desirable homes.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  Paid in bitcoin?
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Bitcoin is pretty easy to trace. Could more easily disappear if paid in cash.
    - sdenton4 5y ago
      Seems to work well enough for ransomware...
      - anonporridge 5y ago
        Actually, no it doesn't. For example, the FBI was able to partially recover the Colonial Pipeline ransom, although that seems to be in part because the perpetrators were stupid by trying to sell it on a US exchange, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ransomware_attack#Partial_ransom_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ransomware_a... Criminals don't use bitcoin anymore. They use cash and monero.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  Banks offer very little protection for scams like this. Basically "the money seems to be gone".
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    I mean, it's probably hard for bankers to turn in their distant cousins.
mihaaly 5y ago
Since it was not sold by the owner it is difficult to argue for the legality of the transaction. Whoever claims bought something has nothing in fact, the person they've been in business with had nothing to sell. Selling nothing is nothing. The records are false! If the authorities assume things are in order here they should also be prosecuted for negligence or being accomplice and at least revert the FALSE transfer of ownership. (are we sure here that the 'buyer' is an unsuspecting party theyself?...)
- pc86 5y ago
  This sounds entirely like how you want things to work, or how you feel they "should" work in a just, fair world. It doesn't sound like you have any legal education or training to base this on. But I greatly prefer your version of events to what happened in the article so please prove me wrong!
  - mihaaly 5y ago
    Someone sold something that this person did not have. Sold nothing. Then what the buyer has? Nothing! There was an error in registering the transactions, it was a false transaction. How my will has anything to do about this or affecting if selling nothing becomes something or not? Where exactly a legal education needed for being able to recognise that the real owner did not sell or give away his property? If I am not a solicitor I cannot possibly comprehend what is a theft, fraud, or recognise bodily harm or crimes in general that are condemned by the society? I do not buy into that. The recognition of these kind of crimes are older than institutions dealing with those. If the stealing of the property is not prosecuted then the system is wrong, needs a fix.

sofixa 5y ago

In France it's the notary's job ( who are the only ones who can validate a sale) to ensure that the seller is who they say they are, and that they do actually own the land/house/apartment. Wonder how that works across the Channel and whose responsibility it was.

lbriner 5y ago
It is the same with a Solicitor but if they followed the correct process and the problem was actually with, say, the DVLA who issued a driving licence in the wrong name, I'm not sure who is liable for the error.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  Why would you use a driver's license when everyone can have a digital ID card? In Belgium the notary will always ask for your digital ID card.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Plenty of folks haven’t updated, or don’t like dealing with it, or ‘lost it’ or whatever. Most people doing notary/certification on stuff like this are used to that kind of situation, so someone having an acceptable but not ideal ID method isn’t going to slow this process down.
    - koonsolo 5y ago
      In Belgium, it's obligatory to carry your ID card everywhere when you are older than 15. So not having it is not allowed. I would be very surprised if a notary wouldn't demand it. They would not put their own job on the line for some idiot.
    - jve 5y ago
      In Latvia, nowdays you cant visit restaurant without a covid certificate verified by ID card or passport. Or to receive parcel at post office. Or when dealing with bank or gov. Etc. However I can do the following: use digital identification, that uses multiple factors along with an app, that requires using digital certificate from id card to setup. Afterwards its just my device and that app PIN that is required to impersonate me (well and semi-public national personal identification number)… this applies to almost all gov services with few exceptions like operations with property… Drivers license has been invalidated years ago as an identification mechanism. Let alone for dealing with property - notary is mandatory along with proper identification.
  - the_svd_doctor 5y ago
    Doesn't the UK _not_ have ID cards?
    - Wildgoose 5y ago
      We are looking at an example of just how bad a mismanaged central database can be. I don't want an ID card that gives someone the ability to delete my entire official existence; either accidentally - or deliberately.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        In normal countries with central ID systems, nobody can delete your official existence. Worst case scenario is you're wrongly declared dead, but I don't see how "chaos and anarchy and just use random pieces of paper to prove who you are" avoids this problem.
      - withinboredom 5y ago
        Your identity is on the chip and cryptographically signed on the card. Even if they delete your records, you can still prove you are who you say you are because it’s on the card. If they lost the records, that’s not your problem.
  - fy20 5y ago
    In the UK there is no official single form of ID. The way these things work is that you need a few letters confirming your address, then that's taken as gospel. A few years ago I was a "victim" of identify theft which happened as follows: Somebody ordered satellite TV to be installed at my house. A few days later they went to a phone shop and walked out with an iPhone in my name, using (I assume) the invoice from the TV service as proof of identity. They then did the same with a few other phone companies. The only way I found out about these was when they sent me bills demanding payment a month or so later :-) They also opened a bank account in my name, which I found out via a credit search, but the bank would not confirm or deny it as I was not the person who opened it. This last bit is more interesting as I believe it had a different address, but was in my name. Technically that is not fraud, as in the UK names are freely changeable without needing any official registration. I could go into a bank tomorrow and ask to open an account, saying my name is "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson" (the Prime Minister's full name) and that would be legal. The bank would probably send me away as I don't have any supporting evidence to prove that's my name, but there's ways around that. You can easily see how you could use this to have enough evidence to back up the claim that you are the owner of the property - especially if the property was vacant and you broke in so you could get the post (I assume the buyer was shown around before they bought it?).
laurent92 5y ago
The Notary in France doesn’t necessarily fully do this job. They have an obligation of means, ie check the last 30 years of ownership and permits, but there are many cracks in that system: - Double ownership for 30 years followed by a proof of ownership from the real, hidden one; - Or simply it is the notary’s understanding that there is no record past 12 years for example, and yet there is. If they have checked “the normal books”, their duty is fulfilled.
- forty 5y ago
  Is there stories of people getting their property stolen this way? My guess is that in France, if such a story as the article happended, the buyer would be kicked out of the house (and probably lose their money stolen by the fraudsters) but maybe I'm completely wrong.
  - dolmen 5y ago
    I remember to have seen a story in France of someone that had bought a house, but someone else did break in and rented it to a family. The people in the house had a rental contract, so they had the immediate right to stay, even it the contract was invalid. Evicting them was a nightmare. Here is a similar story: https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abandonnes-leur-maison-familiale-est-occupee-illegalement-par-un-inconnu-depuis-des-mois-_54135-4864121_actu.Htm https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abando...
    - sofixa 5y ago
      But a notary isn't involved in renting, so there was noone to check.
    - forty 5y ago
      Absolutely. This is for secondary houses mostly though, it's slightly easier to expel those from your main accomodation. But I think in any case your ownership of the property is not challenged. It's "just" that you cannot use it, but eventually you can get it back.
ElFitz 5y ago
Don’t we have actual, physical, titles, tied to the property? Could someone actually sell a house without those?
- gpderetta 5y ago
  Unless the house/land is not yet registered, I believe that the land registry is supposed to be the ultimate authority and deeds are just piece of papers. Ai think you can always argue ownership in a curt of law of course.
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    See this[1] thread on r/legaladviceUK. User pflurklurk is normally very knowledgeable of the UK legal system and probably a solicitor himself (although he claims to be just a random shitposter). [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/qkew77/is_a_property_transfer_done_fraudulently_through https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/qkew77/is_a_...

aclelland 5y ago

Yeah, that part confused me to. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a stolen xbox from some guy on a street corner and the Police find me with it, they'd not throw up their hands and say "oh well, I guess you own it now, on your way". I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.

dtparr 5y ago
I believe the 'quirk' here is that the fraud was able to get property ownership updated with the Land Registry, so the new owner is the official owner of record.
- dgb23 5y ago
  So the Land Registry is at fault? Good luck...
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land if the government can just decide it belongs to someone else.
  - jopsen 5y ago
    Yeah, you don't truly own land, you pay property taxes, etc. It's more like you lease the land :)
  - codyb 5y ago
    Pretty much true everywhere. It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
    - H8crilA 5y ago
      Possession is a physical/real property of the universe. Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.

dmoy 5y ago

It depends on how Title law works in the jurisdiction. I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left holding the bag - the original homeowner would keep the property. It's one reason in the US that most property sales include a purchase of title insurance.

lbriner 5y ago
I'm not a lawyer but the article implies that once the title is transferred, the new owner owns it! There might be liability with the Solicitor or the Land Registry, otherwise it would appear to be incredibly unfair!
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  The article says "The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year." which tends to imply they have some liability.
  - pdmccormick 5y ago
    I wonder if that means they don't pay all that much compensation on a case by case basis, or if there isn't that much fraud occurring to begin with.
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      I suspect they'd rather you claimed against the fraudster or a solicitor, with the compensation fund as a backstop. If that is the case, it could be neither: just that most people get recompensed elsewhere.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  That's right, I think. The property can be recovered from the fraudster, but not from an innocent subsequent purchaser. There is at least some form of compensation scheme by the Land Registry. And 'selling on behalf of someone who isn't the actual owner' certainly can found a liability claim on the solicitor.

_0ffh 5y ago

Yeah, A gets scammed by B and C pays the price. If you can't get a hold on B, then clearly A should be the one all outta luck, not C. Absolutely insane!

so_throwaway 5y ago

You are confusing who actually owned it, or who morally owned it, with who legally owned it. The claim is not that, once the legal issues and the fraud get untangled, the buyer will be held to be the rightful owner. The claim is that AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it. They have written this article as though to suggest that this is final and the original owner has no recourse. That isn't the case. What is the case is that the police don't have a remit to investigate the fraudulent sale. If person A is listed in the registry (they 'legally own' the property) and person B isn't, the police will follow person A's instructions to remove person B from the property, but not vice versa.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it Not an expert on British law, but I don't think this is the case. The new owner owns it. Not temporarily. Fully, permanently and properly. The previous owner was fraudulently deprived of it, and can likely get damages from the parties who signed off on the conveyance. But I don't think they have the right to reverse the transaction against the new owner's will.
- so_throwaway 5y ago
  If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim? The hubris of an internet commenter? Also, it's not surprising. It's unusual for a common law country. But in most jurisdictions, particularly those on statutory law, if the buyer is unrelated to the fraudster and is in possession, the register cannot be altered [1]. This comes, in most places, out of the land registry being a reaction to protracted property disputes. (Often violent.) [1] https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-property-fraud/ https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-propert...

anonAndOn 5y ago

In the US, the buyer is often required to purchase title insurance which would likely cover fraudulent transfer.[0] [0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/title_insurance.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/title_insurance.asp

iammisc 5y ago
The us doesn't have centralized land registries. While the counties record titles as a matter of convenience, the true title is determined by the courts. Other countries have centralized registries so that if the country's database says X piece of land is owned by Y, that's final. In the us it can be litigated and title insurance comes into play for the buyer who purchased it fraudulently.
- bzbarsky 5y ago
  > The us doesn't have centralized land registries. Like any statement about the US, "it's complicated". For example, in Massachusetts there are two types of real estate: recorded and registered. See https://www.deeds.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-recorded-land-and-registered-land-in-massachusetts/ https://www.deeds.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-... for a quick rundown. In some cases, the property that goes with a single house will actually be made up of two bits of land, one of which is recorded and one of which is registered. In other cases it's all recorded or all registered. Now this is not a nationwide centralized registry, it is a state-wide registry within Massachusetts, and my understanding is that the sort of litigation you could get for recorded land does not happen for registered land, because transfer of registered land is already a Land Court decision. Key quote from the above link's description of registered land: As the current state of title is sequentially updated by the registration of future transactions, it embodies a certificate of title that not only evidences title, but in fact guarantees title and is subject only to the exceptions provided by statute and matters of federal law.

anonporridge 5y ago

Also, how does the seller disappear with that much money without being able to be IDed? That seems like a severe failure of the state. It almost makes me wonder if this is a semi common scam wealthy folks use to take poor people's desirable homes.

sdenton4 5y ago
Paid in bitcoin?
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Bitcoin is pretty easy to trace. Could more easily disappear if paid in cash.
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    Seems to work well enough for ransomware...
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      Actually, no it doesn't. For example, the FBI was able to partially recover the Colonial Pipeline ransom, although that seems to be in part because the perpetrators were stupid by trying to sell it on a US exchange, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ransomware_attack#Partial_ransom_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ransomware_a... Criminals don't use bitcoin anymore. They use cash and monero.
koonsolo 5y ago
Banks offer very little protection for scams like this. Basically "the money seems to be gone".
- anonporridge 5y ago
  I mean, it's probably hard for bankers to turn in their distant cousins.

mihaaly 5y ago

Since it was not sold by the owner it is difficult to argue for the legality of the transaction. Whoever claims bought something has nothing in fact, the person they've been in business with had nothing to sell. Selling nothing is nothing. The records are false! If the authorities assume things are in order here they should also be prosecuted for negligence or being accomplice and at least revert the FALSE transfer of ownership. (are we sure here that the 'buyer' is an unsuspecting party theyself?...)

pc86 5y ago
This sounds entirely like how you want things to work, or how you feel they "should" work in a just, fair world. It doesn't sound like you have any legal education or training to base this on. But I greatly prefer your version of events to what happened in the article so please prove me wrong!
- mihaaly 5y ago
  Someone sold something that this person did not have. Sold nothing. Then what the buyer has? Nothing! There was an error in registering the transactions, it was a false transaction. How my will has anything to do about this or affecting if selling nothing becomes something or not? Where exactly a legal education needed for being able to recognise that the real owner did not sell or give away his property? If I am not a solicitor I cannot possibly comprehend what is a theft, fraud, or recognise bodily harm or crimes in general that are condemned by the society? I do not buy into that. The recognition of these kind of crimes are older than institutions dealing with those. If the stealing of the property is not prosecuted then the system is wrong, needs a fix.