Report comment

Anon 4.40. The victim of theft or her insurer are not the guilty or the least innocent (clumsy phraseology) party. Nemo dat ..... . It always seemed odd to me how many owners of the car there were over a very short period.

Anon 5.22. "The fraud would have been foiled had . . ." - very true, but it wasn't and the judge from wherever placed had, subject to appeal, to explain why they hadn't and the fallout.

My earlier post about the apportionment of blame was based on the fraudster's solicitor's failure to pick up on it sooner. He had more opportunity.