STOLEN Kies F80

[Humdizzle]

im wondering now if he got a washed check. person setup a fake bank acct. made a cashiers check for $100. Then washed it and rewrote $75k.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

im wondering now if he got a washed check. person setup a fake bank acct. made a cashiers check for $100. Then washed it and rewrote $75k.

Very possible, today's color printers are pretty amazing. I happened to be at my bank today and I ask to see a certified check and in looking at it it has a distinct watermark but there was no embossing on the watermark. I was surprised and disappointed.

This is from Forbes
How to Avoid Fraud With Certified Checks
Three of the main reasons why people like to use certified checks are to help ensure security, guard against fraud and avoid bounced checks for large transactions. Using a certified check can give a seller more certainty that they will get paid. However, there are still a few tips to look out for to avoid fraud with certified checks:
When you’re the party receiving a certified check, call the bank immediately after receiving the certified check. Don’t use any phone number for the bank that is printed on the check; if the check is fraudulent, that number could be fake, too. Or look up the bank online.
Ask the bank to verify the account holder’s name and check number.
Counterfeiters are becoming more sophisticated at printing official-looking bank logos and creating physically convincing fake checks. While a certified check is typically more secure than an average personal check, you may want to take extra steps to verify that the check is legitimate before releasing the purchased goods.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banki...rtified-check/

When I was in the auto business in the 70's we traded cars between dealer all the time and everyone used the old Pitney Bowes check signer. Couldn't wash one of those checks.



Next time I need to sell something expensive and it's not a local transaction where I can walk into the bank, I'm going wire transfer or nothing.

[Jbrown7403]

It will be interesting to see if any cosmetic / mechanical damage happened to the F80. Hopefully not!

[fixmefixmyhead]

This 100% was not a PR stunt. I unknowingly met with the guy to buy some parts and saw the car but did not recognize it as the kies car and it hadn't been reported stolen yet.

[Jbrown7403]

Agreed. It would be car community and business suicide if it was a stunt. Plus it seems like the police were involved early on. Can’t imagine what criminal charges he’d be subject to if it was fake.

I mean….people do some seriously stupid caca for clout but this would be the top of the heap on the mountain of stupidity.

Someone mentioned earlier about the value of his DIY videos and overall content. Totally agree as it has been really helpful to a novice “mechanic” like myself.

[omasou]

Shame the car's not his My BMW app that he could use to locate it.

Actually, shouldn't BMW be to find it?

[KevinC]

Originally Posted by omasou

Shame the car's not his My BMW app that he could use to locate it.

Actually, shouldn't BMW be to find it?

It's a '16. Might not have an LTE-capable comm box. I know my buddy's '15 F82 is 3G and therefore is not doing any over-the-air communicating with the mothership. Not sure when BMW finally started putting LTE in their boxes. My '19 Golf R is also 3G-only, which is ridiculously late for VW to still have been stuck in that world.

[3002 tii]

Too bad he didn’t have any Apple AirTags installed. I have them in all my cars. Now if it were me I likely would’ve removed it but after learning about this maybe not. Perhaps leave it and disable it after the funds clear?

Secondly, I always snap a picture of persons driver license for car transaction (as buyer or seller).

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

im wondering now if he got a washed check. person setup a fake bank acct. made a cashiers check for $100. Then washed it and rewrote $75k.

The thing that doesn’t add up with that scenario is that he said the routing number was fake. A washed check would have a valid routing number. And that’s one of the parts of the story that doesn’t make sense. He seems to indicate he went to his bank with the buyer to deposit the check. I’m not sure how that really made it any safer for him regarding the genuineness of the check. But, any bank in today’s world could have verified whether the routing number was a real routing number that matched the bank printed on the check in about one minute. I do not understand this part of the story at all. I don’t necessarily doubt Keis, but parts of the story he told don’t add up quite right.

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Very possible, today's color printers are pretty amazing. I happened to be at my bank today and I ask to see a certified check and in looking at it it has a distinct watermark but there was no embossing on the watermark. I was surprised and disappointed.

This is from Forbes
How to Avoid Fraud With Certified Checks
Three of the main reasons why people like to use certified checks are to help ensure security, guard against fraud and avoid bounced checks for large transactions. Using a certified check can give a seller more certainty that they will get paid. However, there are still a few tips to look out for to avoid fraud with certified checks:
When you’re the party receiving a certified check, call the bank immediately after receiving the certified check. Don’t use any phone number for the bank that is printed on the check; if the check is fraudulent, that number could be fake, too. Or look up the bank online.
Ask the bank to verify the account holder’s name and check number.
Counterfeiters are becoming more sophisticated at printing official-looking bank logos and creating physically convincing fake checks. While a certified check is typically more secure than an average personal check, you may want to take extra steps to verify that the check is legitimate before releasing the purchased goods.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banki...rtified-check/

When I was in the auto business in the 70's we traded cars between dealer all the time and everyone used the old Pitney Bowes check signer. Couldn't wash one of those checks.



Next time I need to sell something expensive and it's not a local transaction where I can walk into the bank, I'm going wire transfer or nothing.

I’m a little surprised to see Forbes making this terminology mistake, but a lot of folks here are making it. A bank cashier’s check and a certified check are two different things. A cashier’s check is an obligation of the bank issuing it and is drawn on the bank’s own “cashier’s check” account with absolutely 100% guaranteed funds. A certified check is the bank customer’s own, personal check, drawn on the maker’s personal checking account. The difference is the bank is supposed to place a hold on those funds so that when the check is presented for payment the funds are available to pay the check. The bank does mark the check to indicate it is certified and is, theoretically, genuine with sufficient funds to be paid, but it is not an obligation of the bank itself. It is an obligation of the maker. There was a time when certified checks were relatively common, but they are rarely used these days. In fact, I would be surprised if any banks today actually offer this option.


One other little tidbit of information. The numbers at the bottom of checks are printed with magnetic ink, known as MICR, that is not readily available outside of the banking industry. I think more “professional” crooks have access to it today, but a fake check produced on a normal computer printer or copy machine will not have magnetic ink in the numbers on the bottom of the check. The significance of that is the equipment checks go through to be processed reads the magnetic ink and not having that ink would cause the check to be unreadable by the machines.

[Grease23]

I've read all these posts and I'm not sure the most common tool used by the fraudsters is being clearly explained. Many have mentioned 'making sure the check has cleared,' which misses the point.

Banks are under an obligation to put deposited funds into your account so that they are available to you in a relatively short period of time. A short period of time as in a couple days or so. If you accept a totally phony cashier's check (nonexistent bank, or nonexistent account, for example) the bank WILL "clear" the check in the sense that you can check your balance and see the money there. And you can take it out. That will happen in 2 or 3 days. The check "clearing" doesn't mean it was real.

That doesn't really mean you are out of the woods. It can take 10 to 14 days or more for the fake check to work its way through the system and come to the attention of your bank as being fraudulent. Once that happens -- and believe me there will be no delay here -- your bank will take that money out of your account or out of any other account you have at the bank. The scam takes advantage of the float time; i.e., the time between the moment your bank has to put the money into your account (by law) and make it accessible to you and how long it takes for the bogus check to come back as bogus. If you've taken the money out (or some of it out) you're not off the hook and the bank will come after you aggressively for the balance or the whole amount if you took all of it. Once you understand the key to this, it is hard to blame your bank. You, after all, deposited a fake check. You chose to do business with the person who gave it to you.

So, as some have asked, are cashier's checks worthless from a safety point of view? No, not at all. But you meet at the buyer's bank and you stand with the buyer as they tell the cashier how to make the check out and which account they want to take it out of and how much it will be for. Then you hand over the keys. Do this and you're golden. Only a script writer is going to physically create a bank and populate it with phony bankers and customers to fool you. I wouldn't trust a bank employee (most of whom are paid miserable sums) to "verify" any check for you and most of them will decline to get involved in that way.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Grease23

I've read all these posts and I'm not sure the most common tool used by the fraudsters is being clearly explained. Many have mentioned 'making sure the check has cleared,' which misses the point.

Banks are under an obligation to put deposited funds into your account so that they are available to you in a relatively short period of time. A short period of time as in a couple days or so. If you accept a totally phony cashier's check (nonexistent bank, or nonexistent account, for example) the bank WILL "clear" the check in the sense that you can check your balance and see the money there. And you can take it out. That will happen in 2 or 3 days. The check "clearing" doesn't mean it was real.

That doesn't really mean you are out of the woods. It can take 10 to 14 days or more for the fake check to work its way through the system and come to the attention of your bank as being fraudulent. Once that happens -- and believe me there will be no delay here -- your bank will take that money out of your account or out of any other account you have at the bank. The scam takes advantage of the float time; i.e., the time between the moment your bank has to put the money into your account (by law) and make it accessible to you and how long it takes for the bogus check to come back as bogus. If you've taken the money out (or some of it out) you're not off the hook and the bank will come after you aggressively for the balance or the whole amount if you took all of it. Once you understand the key to this, it is hard to blame your bank. You, after all, deposited a fake check. You chose to do business with the person who gave it to you.

So, as some have asked, are cashier's checks worthless from a safety point of view? No, not at all. But you meet at the buyer's bank and you stand with the buyer as they tell the cashier how to make the check out and which account they want to take it out of and how much it will be for. Then you hand over the keys. Do this and you're golden. Only a script writer is going to physically create a bank and populate it with phony bankers and customers to fool you. I wouldn't trust a bank employee (most of whom are paid miserable sums) to "verify" any check for you and most of them will decline to get involved in that way.

Do you work in banking? From your post here it doesn’t sound like you do. It sounds like these are things you have “figured out” based on your experience with banks.


These days bank are GENERALLY required by regulation J to credit funds to your account much more quickly than they used to be. This is because checks generally clear, are paid or returned by the institution they are drawn on, much more quickly than they used to be. But, there are exceptions to this requirement. With large items, such as a $75,000 cashier’s check, banks absolutely do take extra steps to make sure the item is genuine.

Regarding holding the availability of funds, banks can and do place holds on funds they have concerns about. This isn’t an exact correlation, because I imagine Keis deposited the check into an established account, but I just opened a new high yield savings account with the online bank subsidiary of a brick and mortar bank with a $500 EFT (electronic funds transfer) from my established checking account with a very large national bank. Before I made the EFT deposit the new bank did the typical electronic test deposits and withdrawals of a few cents to ensure the account was legitimate. In spite of having confirmed the legitimacy of my checking account and the fact that the EFT deposit I made was only $500 they placed a hold on the availability of the entire $500 for either seven or ten calendar days (can’t remember which) before the funds even showed up that they were in my account. The transaction showed up on their website, but it didn’t even show that it was posted to my account until the day they made the funds available. I took notice of this because I wondered if they were going to do this as a way to avoid paying the higher interest during the hold period, but I was pleased to find out they were paying interest even though the availability of the funds was being held.

So, there is not a hard and fast requirement that banks make uncollected funds available to their customers within just two or three days without exception.

[geko29]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

One other little tidbit of information. The numbers at the bottom of checks are printed with magnetic ink, known as MICR, that is not readily available outside of the banking industry. I think more “professional” crooks have access to it today, but a fake check produced on a normal computer printer or copy machine will not have magnetic ink in the numbers on the bottom of the check. The significance of that is the equipment checks go through to be processed reads the magnetic ink and not having that ink would cause the check to be unreadable by the machines.

This is all correct except for the availability piece. Anyone in the world can buy a MICR toner cartridge for their laser printer for around $200 (some are more, some are less). You can get them from Amazon, Ebay, OfficeMax, Staples, CDW, etc etc etc.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by geko29

This is all correct except for the availability piece. Anyone in the world can buy a MICR toner cartridge for their laser printer for around $200 (some are more, some are less). You can get them from Amazon, Ebay, OfficeMax, Staples, CDW, etc etc etc.

That doesn’t surprise me. I must admit I haven’t ever shopped for MICR ink and the thought crossed my mind when I typed that it might be easier to get these days than it once was. And, yep, I just looked at Amazon, $200. Thanks for the correction.

This made me think of something related to routing numbers. I remember back in the day when routing numbers couldn’t be verified so easily fraudsters used to use routing numbers for banks in Hawaii, because the longer processing time for checks to get there and back gave them more time before the fraud was discovered.

[Grease23]

Everything I said is accurate, explained in layperson's terms, and addressed to the issue of "clearing" having significance. I hoped somebody would find it helpful.

"Do you work in banking? From your post here it doesn’t sound like you don’t. (sic) It sounds like these are things you have “figured out” based on your experience with banks."

I assume you got tripped up by your double negative there. I try to avoid those.

I've noticed some of your other 'qualification' challenges to people posting things. Interesting. You conflate plain speaking and appropriate simplification with ignorance. Does anybody actually need a statutory reference? It doesn't help them at all; it is just a chance to show off.

Well, I am sorry you think I sound unschooled in this. I just retired from 43 years practicing law in Los Angeles, roughly half of it representing three banks with national footprints. I have litigated hundreds of cases for banks, from trial through appeals and reported decisions. In that time I have indeed 'figured' some things (but not everything) out.

This fraudulent attempt to take advantage of the time delay between "clearing" and discovery of fraud is customized for various industries and circumstances. In the practice of law, there was a wave of it. A new client appears through email only (Red flag #1) wanting the firm to take on a breach of contract/lease or collection matter or anything else where a win would involve somebody else paying money. Some fee arrangement is agreed to, almost always a contingency arrangement. Then, remarkably, after very little legal effort (say, writing just one letter, or sending the potential defendant a draft complaint) the 'other side' (which really isn't the other side at all) capitulates and pays up. Some of the set ups are elaborate, with supporting correspondence, contracts, and so forth. Typically, the email (only) communications are not the unsophisticated and ungrammatical language so common in email frauds. They seem to know the difference between "than" and "then," for example, which I see you think is very important.

"Wonderful, deposit the check!" says the client. "Take your fees out of it and forward the balance to me." Quite a nice fee for doing practically nothing. (Red flag #2) The pressure is on to pay out the client portion of the settlement between the time the check hits the firm's bank and the discovery of the check being bogus. A naive attorney checks with his or her bank, sees the $$ in the client trust account, thinks the check has "cleared" and sends the client their portion. Lots of lawyers fell for this before word got out.

The core "fact" common to the car swindle, the lawyer swindle, the innumerable Craigslist variants and on and on is the time delay. I just wanted to point that out. Whether the bank puts the cash in the account after two days, or three, or four is not a significant variable.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Grease23

Everything I said is accurate, explained in layperson's terms, and addressed to the issue of "clearing" having significance. I hoped somebody would find it helpful.

"Do you work in banking? From your post here it doesn’t sound like you don’t. (sic) It sounds like these are things you have “figured out” based on your experience with banks."

I assume you got tripped up by your double negative there. I try to avoid those.

You are correct. I did. I guess it’s what I get for rereading what I wrote. I missed that I had already said “doesn’t” and saw the “do” and changed it to “doesn’t”. I’m sorry. I maintain my position that what you wrote was less than clear to the layman without a detailed understanding of how the system operates. It’s nice to know you do.

[IcewaterPete]

Festival of amateurs. Sad, but just another day in America.

[WhiteFox]

Sad to hear this but glad car was found should have been a bank transfer and a copy taken of a bank statement or utility bill and driving license as that’s what people tend to do in the UK. Cars usually stolen to be stripped for parts so lucky that didn’t happen.

[Grease23]

Anybody who reads all these posts and is "still unclear" on what the issue is probably should be considering conservatorship.

[G30M]

edit: clickbait, nothing useful in the video lol

[NickyC]

They took out the G80 seats? Lame.

[B58-M340iX]

Originally Posted by NickyC

They took out the G80 seats? Lame.

Yeah, they just left the rest of the $150k in mods

[BlkGS]

Didn't watch any of the videos, but the convenience and sketchiness of it all, as well as the vagueness reeks of social media PR stunt.