The owner of a $1.2m Bugatti Veyron EB is being sued for allegedly driving his superc

[Streets]

Yes... there was never any pelican...

[Fev]

BAHAHAHA!!! Gold!

Originally Posted by Stefan

The story mentions nothing of Police or Criminal charges..

Charged by Police = criminal.

Sued by the insurer = civil. He is being sued by the insurer so it is civil.

Still - he is either guilty of the fraud accusations (reason for being sued) or he is not. Currently he is NOT, otherwise we'd already be seeing the results of the court case..


I'm trying to think of a "You got served" joke but i can't quite work one out lol

[Fev]

douuble.

[EF ECTIV]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Pretty straight forward fraud, make false statement, gain benefit by deception take your pick, all of which are criminal offences which need to be proven in Australia beyond all reasonable doubt. US may be different but he is innocent until proven guilty. I think the article said the car was worth $1 million but it was insured for much more maybe $2 million. Easy to see why he did it!!

incorrect.... As Stefan said no the article doesnt mention any criminal
proceedings being commenced... If police charge him obviously it also becomes
a criminal matter, but since its only the insurer suing him its a civil matter...
Which like I said is decided on the balance of probabilities....

If found guilty, he has obviously lied and the facts may suggest fraud but
until the police initiate criminal proceedings it remains a separate civil matter...


edit: Even if the police do charge him, the proceedings instigated by the
insurer will always be a civil matter, separate from police charging him... Thus
he could be found guilty of fraud in the civil case (based on balance of
probabilities) but be found not guilty of fraud in the criminal case as the
prosecution couldnt produce enough evidence to show he was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mr G8]

Borrowed a mil? Oh yeah i'll just up to one of my mate and say "Oi, can i borrow a million dollars to buy a 1000HP car, and kill it to get an extra 1 mill? Thanks!" lol That 'friend' is way too loose with his money!

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by EF ECTIV

edit: Even if the police do charge him, the proceedings instigated by the
insurer will always be a civil matter, separate from police charging him... Thus
he could be found guilty of fraud in the civil case (based on balance of
probabilities) but be found not guilty of fraud in the criminal case as the
prosecution couldnt produce enough evidence to show he was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Correct I believe OJ Simpson was innocent in his criminal proceedings and guilty in the civil proceedings.

[blackf6]

From my viewing of the video i can not without a reasonable doubt ascertain whether their was or wasn't a pelican. So i will reside with the judge on this one.

[raptorv8]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

so with that kind of cash, and assets, he isnt too hard up on needing more cash.

and is the insurer really going with "he had the engine running for 15 mins after?"

it's impossble to run a efi engine in water for 15 mins.

I would say its totally possible, look at pics of it in the water, the intakes are not covered probably just the bottom of the block and turbos so if its all watertight down there which it would be no issue with running a partially submerged petrol motor, 4wds do it everyday.

But on topic sucked in to him, gotta suck trying to do the dodge and getting caught.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The story mentions nothing of Police or Criminal charges..

Charged by Police = criminal.

Sued by the insurer = civil. He is being sued by the insurer so it is civil.

Appreciate that however i made no mention of the article stating the police were involved, I was commenting on the statement that it was really only a civil matter. The driver has committed fraud/gained benefit by deception and most likely made a false statement to the insurer. Nothing to stop it being both a criminal and civil matter. The police however will only proceed usually if they receive a complaint, in this case from the insurer. It may depend on whether the insurer has paid out on the claim as to whether they refer if to police or pursue the claimant civily. If they haven't lost money I would think they would refer it to police. Moral of the story is if you're gunna pull a shonk make sure no-one is filming you.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by EF ECTIV

incorrect.... As Stefan said no the article doesnt mention any criminal
proceedings being commenced... If police charge him obviously it also becomes
a criminal matter, but since its only the insurer suing him its a civil matter...
Which like I said is decided on the balance of probabilities....

If found guilty, he has obviously lied and the facts may suggest fraud but
until the police initiate criminal proceedings it remains a separate civil matter...


edit: Even if the police do charge him, the proceedings instigated by the
insurer will always be a civil matter, separate from police charging him... Thus
he could be found guilty of fraud in the civil case (based on balance of
probabilities) but be found not guilty of fraud in the criminal case as the
prosecution couldnt produce enough evidence to show he was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wasn't disagreeing as to the standard of proof just commenting that in the first instance he has committed a criminal offence. Most civil actions follow after criminal matters for a couple of reasons, the most obvious one being if a person is found guilty at a criminal trial with a higher standard of proof than a civil trial, the civil matter should be a reasonably sure thing.

[cheap]

Very impressive collection of cars, I wonder if he's had other accidents happen before and successfully claimed?

He'd have difficulty driving here in OZ with our kangaroo's, emu's and wombats