Cowl replacement and VIN swapping

Clint, that '71 should have the vin on a little aluminum tag riveted to the inside of the driver's door. All 3 of my bumpsides do. Never heard of a bumpside haveing one on the dash.

Yea Mav's have it up on the dash like that.

 

i misread his initial post.... i dont see a prob with putting the old vin on a new dash that is going into that original car..


just keep in mind... if the VIN tag looks like it was swapped, you will have a huge explanation...

 

I may see a problem with it. Supposedly the rivets that hold the tag on are unique factory only pieces. Someone could question standard rivets being there as a possible
VIN switch.

I'd research the thought through the local DMV for clarification.

Seth

 

From the Boss website. They have a section on this.

18 USCS § 2321

TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. CRIMES
CHAPTER 113. STOLEN PROPERTY

18 USCS § 2321 (2003)

§ 2321. Trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts

(a) Whoever buys, receives, possesses, or obtains control of, with intent to sell or otherwise dispose of, a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, knowing that an identification number for such motor vehicle or part has been removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

107 A.L.R.5th 567

SUMMARY: Illegally removing or altering a vehicle identification number (VIN) or selling or possessing a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN constitutes a crime in most states. In order to impose liability, state courts normally require a culpable mental state on the part of the defendant in altering or removing a VIN or in possessing a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. Some states, however, do not require any culpable mental state on the part of the defendant when selling a vehicle or vehicle part with a removed or altered VIN.

For example, in State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998), the defendant sold a vehicle that was subsequently found to have an altered VIN. The defendant claimed the state was required to establish that he had knowledge of the VIN alteration at the time the sale occurred. The court held that while knowledge was required for possessing a vehicle with an altered VIN, the statute's plain language indicated that knowledge was not required when selling a vehicle with an altered VIN.

Most state courts held that knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is required before the defendant can be convicted of altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10[a] ). However, a few courts have concluded that from a plain reading of the applicable statute, knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is not required when altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10 ). Courts singled out a number of particular circumstances as tending to establish knowledge of an altered or removed VIN on the part of the defendant. For instance, knowledge was found to exist where there is physical evidence of the VIN alteration as well as proof the defendant tried to sell the vehicle or had possession of the vehicle for a long period of time ( § 10[c] ). Knowledge was also proved by evidence that the defendant was warned of a missing or altered VIN and did not correct the defect or where the police found evidence of a "chop shop" and other dismantled vehicle parts in the defendant's possession ( § 10[c] ). To the contrary, courts found the defendant did not have knowledge of an altered or removed VIN where, although there was evidence of possession or sale of the vehicle, there was no direct or physical evidence the defendant altered or removed the VIN ( § 10[d] ). Knowledge was also not proved where the defendant merely leased a building to a person operating a "chop shop" and did not know what was happening inside the building ( § 10[d] ).

Along with the culpable mental state requirement, courts also addressed the criminal conduct involved in altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. For example, state courts found that a VIN was altered or removed even if the concealed VIN was not removed or the vehicle bore an additional VIN not affixed by the manufacturer ( § 12[a] ).


New York:

The court held in People v. Giese, 95 Misc. 2d 792, 408 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1978), order aff'd without published op, 68 A.D.2d 1019, 414 N.Y.S.2d 947 (2d Dep't 1979), that federal law (Federal Safety Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381 et seq. (Repl.; see 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 30101 et seq.)) did not preempt N.Y. Penal Law § 170.70, which makes it illegal to possess a VIN that has been removed from a vehicle or vehicle part to which the VIN was affixed by the manufacturer in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle and Information Cost Savings Act.


Illinois:

Enough circumstantial evidence was found by the court in People v. Kilgore, 33 Ill. App. 3d 557, 338 N.E.2d 124 (2d Dist. 1975), to sustain the defendant's conviction under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 95 1/2, P 4-103(b) (1973), for knowingly possessing a vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The court found that the combination of circumstances, which included the payment of $ 500 for a car valued at more than $ 2,000; the falsified VIN on the bill of sale in defendant's possession; the defendant's explanation that he purchased a burned out car and added value thereafter, which was refuted by the actual condition of the car; the fact the defendant did not present invoices or receipts corroborating his story that he bought parts to repair the car; and his failure to complete the title application or apply for plates in the time available, supported the conviction.


Ohio:

In State v. Halczyszak, 1990 WL 32605 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1990), the court upheld a conviction under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4549.62(D)(1), after it was found that salvage yard owners knowingly possessed a vehicle in which the VIN was altered. The court found that the case record revealed that the owners knowingly and purposely altered the body of an older vehicle by attaching the VIN from a newer vehicle. In addition, one of the salvage yard owners further demonstrated this knowledge by stating to the police that she believed they could transfer the VIN from one car to another.

Missouri:

According to the court in State v. Wakefield, 682 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1984), there was sufficient evidence to convict the owner of a salvage yard and repair shop of removing or defacing a vehicle's VIN in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.400 (1978). The court held there was enough evidence in the record that permitted the inference that at some time the owner, or his employees, mounted the body of a stolen 1978 vehicle on the frame and transmission of a 1980 vehicle, which the defendant had acquired as salvage. The public VIN was removed from the 1980 salvage vehicle and was affixed by homemade rosette rivets to the body of the 1978 vehicle. Thereafter, the reconstituted vehicle was sold as a 1980 model vehicle. The court found the above evidence was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction under the statute.Here are cites to individual state laws and cases:

[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]
[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]Is stamping or removing a VIN on an engine block or other part illegal?

It might be, according to this case:

The court held in Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969), that there was sufficient evidence to sustain an automobile repairman's conviction, under Md. Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, § 73 (1957), of possessing a vehicle knowing the engine VIN had been defaced for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of the vehicle. While the evidence clearly showed that the repairman had in his possession a vehicle containing an engine which he admitted had been removed from another vehicle and whose VIN had been covered by a bead of weld, it was not shown that he ever had direct contact with the engine, either in purchasing it, receiving it after it was purchased, or removing it from one car and installing it in the other. Nevertheless, the court recognized that the repairman admitted he knew the provisions of the statute and therefore the court held that he deliberately "shut his eyes" so he would not have knowledge that the VIN on the engine in his possession had been defaced. The court noted that the engine was easily accessible to him while in his possession and it was immaterial, in the face of the statute, that engine numbers may not be required on certificates of title and that the statute does not provide specifically that failure to make a reasonable inspection means knowledge. He thus acted at his peril, concluded the court, and could be deemed as having "knowledge" of the fact that the engine VIN was defaced.

BE CAREFUL, EVERYONE. WITH THE VALUE OF OUR CARS RISING, SUCH CONDUCT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS MALICIOUS AND FRAUDULENT.

Sam Mamola, J.D.



Your situation is not that you are attempting to deceive anyone, but I
would cover my rear and make darn sure that nobody could ever make an issue out of replacing the original VIN.

Seth

 

I would think it would be illegal to swap a Dashboard WITHOUT swapping the VIN. I did a quick google search and lots of folks do it when swapping the dash. If you have the original bill of sale or title who cares what the rivets look like. Just explain you swapped the dash and the VIN plate. We aren't talking about a $200,000 stolen Ferrari that we plan on reselling in Europe ...

 

Technically wouldn't you want documentation showing that the replacement cowl didn't come from a stolen vehicle.

 

It's all nonsense IMO.
If you buy a new (to you) dash for your Maverick, swap your original VIN tag to it.
The folks at the DMV here can hardly read a VIN tag, much less identify the manufacturer specific rivets for a given year, make, and model car.
If the dash matches the title, you are fine... rivets included.
Dave

 

I just made a call to the local NC Dept. of Motor Vehicles just out of curiousity.

I asked what would be the scenario for replacing a dash in a car under restoration.
I left the assumption that nothing had been done at this point. I told him that we had a car with a clean title, all paperwork was in order and the serial numbers matched.
I told him that we had a parts car-clear also but in disrepair, and that we intended to replace the dash in the project car with the dash from the parts car.

He stated: 'A local DMV Inspector must verify the matching VIN's. He stated that in all likelihood they would issue a new North Carolina issued serial number that will take the place of the VIN on the dash of the project car and that it would also be added to a tag that would be attached to your door. Your original VIN from your project car would become a secondary identification number added to your title. He also added that at the DMV inspectors discretion he could also require that 'REBUILT' be added to the title. I asked what would he have to see to add that. He stated that people are supposed to add that to title when they do a motor/engine swap or replace/rebuild the car after accidents. Thus a 'Salvage' type of title.

I asked what would happen if we just move the VIN to the dash from the project car. He reminded me that 'tampering with a VIN in any manner is a felony'.

I'd cover my ass but do as you like.

919-816-9194 Theft inspection division with NCDMV. I already researched this a long time ago when I was about to plop down some cash on a 'K' code fastback Mustang a few years ago. It had been rebuilt-not clear on how and the seller claimed innocence.

Seth

 

Ahhh yes, the clarity of a well oiled bureaucracy. every engine change requires a salvage title? hmmmmm, lots of people following that rule

 

yea, I didn't think about it but I believe you guys are right. I think the VIN is on the dash, not the cowl... gotta look. If anyone has a complete car (unlike mine) that they can get to easily (unlike mine), just take a look please.

the VIN is under glass, so it has to be on the dash and not the cowl, right?

looks like I don't have to worry about it... and yes, they do use some different rivets... if nothing else, brand new rivets on an old car with an old VIN tag would be a sign that something has been tinkered with.

 

It is on the dash, right where the windshield seal starts.
Check with your state office without telling them you have
done anything and see what is required to keep this from biting
you later. Even if you told someone you did it before selling
your car-they could still raise a stink. I have also heard of
some states being able to seize a car with tampered VINs.

Good luck.

Seth

 

The transmission in my car has the VIN ground off, was like that when I took it out of my parts car. It talks about engines and transmissions on there. Wonder if there is anything illegal about that.

If I had a rare collector car that used the VIN as a means of identifying it being rare, and it needed a new dash, I think I would get pretty upset about them wanting to issue me a new VIN when there was nothing wrong with the old one.

 

Thansmissions dont have Vin #s.

I've switched dashes before and used standard rivits to reattach the vin plate. Once everything is painted, you cant really tell the difference. I think your a little too paranoid.

 

Yes they do. The original C4 I took out of my car has a little flat part on top that has the VIN of the car stamped in. My '76 is the same way. The trans I took out of my '73 had it ground off. The guy I got the car from told me he got the trans from a friend of his.