Bucharest Bar Council vs.
SCPA Dragan & Partners law firm
- analysis on committing material forgery on official documents -
Two lawyers are involved in a significant criminal scandal which could disrupt the good order of the Bucharest Bar. They are accused of forging documents while exercising their profession and causing important damages to multiple businessmen and companies.
Although the prosecutor who handled the case retained several acts of forging official documents, he considered that there is no public interest to send the two lawyers to court. The two lawyers continue to work in a law firm which was established in a questionable manner considering that the decision based on which it was founded in 2013 actually belongs to a different company closed down through the resolution of the same Bucharest Bar and dated 2007. The Bar has just recently decided, after multiple notifications, to investigate these circumstances.
The case involves two lawyers, Dragan Ioana Candida and Dragoi Orlando Catalin, shareholders of the Law Firm „Drăgan & Partners” and it all begins in 2013 when a businessman signed two representation agreements with the law firm, one as a natural person and one for the company which he manages and owns. He shows that afterwards he discovered that the lawyer Dragan Ioana Candida established, in his name and on his behalf, a new company by forging his signature on several documents. The company was established in 2013 and was dissolved the following year. A different company, respectively Gama Proconsult SRL steps in, which also incurred losses and damages caused by the two lawyers. During its short existence, the company Skycore SRL, established by the two lawyers through absolute and full forgery of the incorporation documents, sent, in August 2013, complaints to the State Department for Construction and the City Hall of Sector 6, regarding a construction project presumed to be performed by the company Gama Proconsult SRL, complaints which bore the signature of Mr. Stefan Stan, shareholder and administrator of Skycore SRL, who actually had no connection or knowledge about this procedure undertaken with the above mentioned institutions. Based on the notices, the company Gama Proconsult is sanctioned and fined by the local Police for actions which it hadn’t carried out. After about three years, the company Gama Proconsult SRL finally wins in Court and the Contravention Penalty Report is cancelled and the foreclosure proceeding by Anaf S6 (National Agency for Fiscal Administration of Sector 6) against the company is terminated.
Several comments can be made in this regard, however, for the moment, we’ll focus our attention on the criminal file no. 680/P/2016, handled by the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal resulted from Gama Proconsult’s complaint.
During May 2017, following the complaints received, the Public prosecutor’s Office decides to start a criminal investigation against Attorney Dragan Ioana Candida, for committing material forgery on official documents, complicity in using a forgery and counterfeit and against Attorney Dragoi Orlando Catalin for forgery on official documents and against Popescu Dana for use of forgery. “It’s hereby retained that the suspects Dragan Ioana Candida and Dragoi Orlando Catalina have forged, in their capacity of lawyers, through complete forgery, the articles of incorporation of the company Skycore SRL, the legal assistance agreement series B No. 851562/2013 and the affidavit dated 18.07.2013 submitted by the suspect Dragan Ioana Candida to be used on 24.07.2013 and 25.07.2013 at the ORCTB by the suspect Dragan Ioana Candida to incorporate and register the company Skycore SRL on 25.07.2013. Also, the suspect Dragan Ioana Candida sent to the City Hall of Sector 6 of Bucharest and to the State Department for Construction complaints on behalf of the Administrator of the company Skycore SRL, whose signature was forged”, as the Ordinance of the Prosecutor’s Office shows.
No Public Interest
An extended investigation was carried out, including examinations to determine if the respective signatures were forged. In their defense, the suspects confirmed that the businessman knew about the incorporation of the company as he chose the logo and negotiated on behalf of the company.
However, the examinations show that multiple signatures of the businessman were forged.
Further on we quote from the same ordinance: “It’s determined that the Articles of Incorporation of the company Skycore SRL, the affidavit of Stefan Stan and the legal assistance agreement, which were not signed by Stefan Stan, were forged through complete forgery by the suspects Dragan Ioana Candida and Dragoi Orlando Catalin, act which is provided by the provisions regarding material forgery on official documents as per art. 320 of the Criminal Code with application of art 35 para 1 of the Criminal Code. However, the punishment provided by law for this crime is of 3 years at the most, and through the actual manner of committing the act, the purpose, the resulted consequences (the company was immediately closed down), the discrepancy between the expenses occurred by a criminal trial and the gravity of the consequences actually resulted, considering the individuals and the previous behaviour of the suspects Dragan Ioana Candida and Dragoi Orlando Cristian, the criminal investigation may cease, as there is no public interest to continue the investigation of the respective act.”
In other words, to summarize what the prosecutors wrote in the 20 pages of the ordinance, some acts were acquitted, others were retained against the suspects, but the Romanian state considers it wouldn’t have anything to gain by sending them to court.
The Ordinance reaches the judge, who on 11.06.2018 retains the following:
- “the documents at hand were certified by the suspect Dragoi Orlando Catalin (the Articles of Incorporation of the company SKYCORE SRL and the affidavit of Mr Stan Stefan), certification which involves the identification of the person, respectively signed by the suspect Dragan Ioana Candida (the legal assistance agreement series B No. 855621/2013) which also involves the identification of the party who signed the agreement”
- “in agreement with the Prosecutor, he retains that the suspects have committed the crime of material forgery in official documents as provided by art 320 of the Criminal Code with application of art 35 para 1 of the Criminal Code, with the guilt provided by law, so the possibility that a different person undertook the identity of the harmed person and misled the two suspects, is excluded”;
“In conclusion, further to the above shown, the judge cannot retain the request of the suspects to acquit them for committing material forgery on official documents as provided by art 320 of the Criminal Code with application of art 35 para 1 of the Criminal Code.”
Also, the judge retains that the suspects committed these actions during their duties as lawyers”. Final, according to art 318 para 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
How does the Bucharest Bar react?
One of the harmed parties, Mr Stefan Stan, a businessman and the Vice-President of the ROCCIJA- the Romanian Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Japan, submitted complaints to the Bucharest Bar, since 2016, requesting the disciplinary hearings of the two lawyers.
The first complaint, sent before the ending of the criminal file, was treated as irrelevant. After the decision was issued by the Court, he re-sent the complaint. In turn, the company Gama Proconsult SRL which was penalized based on a forged document issued by Skycore SRL, also notified the institution.
Only on Tuesday, May 14th 2019 – coincidentally or not, during the period of re-electing the management of the Bucharest Bar, the Council of the Bar discussed the case, inviting both complainants and afterwards, separately the two lawyers to provide their points of view and positions. Also, a representative of the online portal dedicated to entrepreneurs – Romania Business – was also invited to attend the discussions, and the President of the Bar, Attorney Ion Dragne, confirmed that serious examinations are being undertaken and that a decision shall be communicated to us.
The complainants confirmed the existence of circumstances for disciplinary hearings of the two lawyers, which could result in suspending their activity and even their exclusion from the Bucharest Bar for serious infringements of the status of attorney, incompatible with the profession which Dragan Ioana Candida and Dragoi Orlando Catalin should have carried out with honour and correctly according to the oath.
“I’m glad that this case is being handled, even if three years have passed since the first complaint I made. I trust that the Bucharest Bar will treat it with maximum seriousness and won’t try to cover the actions of these two lawyers, because otherwise the Bucharest Bar would send the message that any lawyer can perform serious misconduct, respectively criminal offences, without risking any sanctions”, says Mr Stefan Stan at the end of the discussions.
We consider that this case presents interest for the business environment in Romania, as it encourages businessmen to carefully choose their partners and collaborators and allows the public opinion to acknowledge the lawyers and law firms which practice their profession by infringing the law although they swear to defend and respect it.
Surely, the law Firm Dragan & Partners and the attorneys Dragan Ioana Candida and Dragoi Orlando Catalin should be avoided regardless of the decision which shall be made by the Bucharest Bar.
In support of the above, for the moment we’ll publish the link off www.portal.just.ro which shows the offences retained against the attorney Dragan Ioana Candida – 4 acts of forgery on official documents and 5 material acts for the same crime against Dragoi Orlando Catalin: http://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=200000000362771&id_inst=2
Also, Romania Business’ editorial team is expecting an official statement from the Bucharest Bar regarding the measures undertaken in this case, which represents a real interest for the complainants as well as for the other attorneys which are members of the Bucharest Bar, and who surely don’t want to be associated with the representatives of the Law Firm “Dragan & Partners”.
To be continued….
Consiliul Baroului Bucuresti, sub conducerea Decanului Av. Ion Dragne, analizeaza faptele penale ale colegilor de breasla (Partea I)
Doi avocaţi sunt implicaţi într-un scandal penal de proporţii, unul care riscă să zguduie temeinic Baroul Bucureşti. Sau poate nu, pentru ca nu este prima data cand avocatii Baroului “se iarta” intre ei. Cei doi sunt acuzaţi că in exercitarea profesiei au falsificat documente, aducând serioase prejudicii mai multor oameni de afaceri si societati comerciale.
Deşi a reţinut mai multe fapte de fals material în înscrisuri oficiale, procurorul care a instrumentat cazul a considerat că nu există interes public pentru trimiterea celor doi avocati în judecată. Cei doi continuă să profeseze - la o societate de avocatură a cărei însăşi înfiinţare e discutabilă tinand cont ca decizia pe baza carei a fost infiintata societatea in anul 2013 apartine in realitate unei alte societati desfiintate prin decizia aceluiasi Barou Bucuresti si datata in anul 2007, iar Baroul, abia de curând, după mai multe sesizări, a decis să facă o verificare cu privire la această situaţie.
CONSILIUL BAROULUI BUCURESTI VS SCPA DRAGAN & PARTNERS
Fapte penale retinute de judecatori intr-o hotarare definitiva. Se vor lua masuri sau se vor acoperi avocatii intre ei?
Instanta a retinut definitiv ca cei doi avocati, in exercitarea profesiei, au falsificat documente. Cazul îi vizează pe avocaţii Drăgan Ioana Candida şi Drăgoi Orlando Cătălin, asociaţi la SCPA „Drăgan & Partners”. Totul începe în 2013, când un om de afaceri încheie două contracte de reprezentare cu societatea de avocatură, unul pe persoană fizică şi unul pentru societatea pe care acesta o controlează. El arata că, ulterior, a ajuns la concluzia că avocata a înfiinţat, în numele său, falsificându-i semnăturile pe mai multe acte, o nouă societate comerciala. Societatea a fost infiintata în 2013 şi s-a dizolvat în anul următor. Aici intervine o alta societate comerciala care se consideră păgubita de activitatea celor doi avocaţi, Gama Proconsult SRL. În scurta sa existenţă, firma Skycore SRL, cea infiintata de cei doi avocati prin plasmuirea integrala a actelor de infiintare, a trimis, în august 2013, sesizări către Inspectoratul de Stat în Construcţii şi Primăria Sectorului 6, vizând o lucrare de construcţii presupus derulată de societatea Gama Proconsult SRL, sesizări pe care figurează ca semnatar dl. Ştefan Stan, asociat şi administrator Skycore SRL, care însă nu avea nici o cunostiinta sau legatura despre acest demers adresat institutiilor mai sus-mentionate. Pe baza sesizărilor, firma Gama Proconsult este sancţionată contravenţional de Poliţia Locală pentru fapte pe care nu le-a savarsit. Dupa circa trei ani, societatea Gama Proconsult SRL reuşeşte in final să obţină câştig de cauză în instanţă definitiv si irevocabil prin care anuleaza procesul verbal de contraventie si anuleaza executarea silita a firmei de catre ANAF S6.
Sunt foarte multe lucruri de comentat aici, însă, pentru moment, ne îndreptăm atenţia spre dosarul penal nr. 680/P/2016, instrumentat de Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti ca urmare a plangerii societatii Gama Proconsult.
În mai 2017, în urma sesizărilor primite, unitatea de parchet decide efectuarea urmăririi penale faţă de avocatul Drăgan Ioana Candida, pentru săvârşirea infracţiunilor de fals material în înscrisuri oficiale, complicitate la uz de fals şi uz de fals si fata de avocatul Drăgoi Orlando Cătălin, pentru fals material în înscrisuri oficiale, şi Popescu Dana, pentru uz de fals. „S-a reţinut că suspecţii Drăgan Ioana Candida şi Drăgoi Orlando Cătălin au falsificat, in calitate de avocati, prin plăsmuire integrală, actul constitutiv al SC Skycore SRL, contractul de asistenţă juridică seria B nr. 851562/2013 şi declaraţia pe proprie răspundere din 18.07.2013 puse la dispoziţie de suspectul Drăgan Ioana Candida pentru a fi folosite la 24.07.2013 şi 25.07.2013 la ORCTB de suspectul Popescu Dana pentru înfiinţarea şi înscrierea la 25.07.2013 a SC Skycore SRL. De asemenea, suspectul Drăgan Ioana Candida a adresat Primăriei Sectorului 6 Bucureşti şi Inspectoratului de Stat în Construcţii sesizări în numele administratorului SC Skycore SRL, a cărui semnătură a fost falsificată”, se arată în ordonanţa Parchetului.
Nu a existat interes public
A urmat o anchetă amplă, inclusiv cu expertize pentru a determina dacă semnăturile respective au fost falsificate. În apărarea lor, suspecţii au afirmat că omul de afaceri ştia despre înfiinţarea societăţii, fiind şi cel care a ales logo-ul şi ar fi făcut negocieri în numele firmei.
Totuşi, expertizele au confirmat că mai multe semnături ale omului de afaceri au fost falsificate.
Mai departe, cităm din aceeaşi ordonanţă: „Se constată că actul constitutiv al SC Skycore SRL, declaraţia pe proprie răspundere a numitului Stefan Stan şi contractul de asistenţă juridică, care nu au fost semnate de numitul Stefan Stan, au fost falsificate prin plăsmuire integrală de către suspecţii Drăgan Ioana Candida şi Drăgoi Orlando Cătălin, faptă ce se încadrează în dispoziţiile privind falsul material în înscrisuri oficiale, prev. de art. 320 C.p. cu aplicarea art. 35 alin. 1 C.P. Însă, pentru această infracţiune pedeapsa prevăzută de lege este de cel mult trei ani, iar prin modalitatea concretă de săvârşire a faptei, scopul urmărit, urmările produse (societatea a fost imediat radiată), existenţa unor disproporţii vădite între cheltuielile pe care le-ar implica procesul penal şi gravitatea urmărilor efectiv produse, ţinând cont de persoana şi conduita anterioară a suspecţilor Drăgan Ioana Candida şi Drăgoi Orlando Catalin, se apreciază că se poate renunţa la urmărirea penală, neexistând un interes public în urmărirea respectivei fapte”.
Cu alte cuvinte, concluzionand ce au scris procurorii in cele aproape 20 de pagini ale ordonantei, unele fapte au fost clasate, altele au fost retinute in sarcina suspectilor, insa statul roman a considerat ca n-ar avea nimic de castigat din trimiterea lor in judecata.
Ordonanţa ajunge la judecător, care în data de 11.06.2018 retine urmatoarele:
- „inscrisurile in discutie au fost atestate de suspectul Dragoi Orlando Catalin (actul constitutiv al SC SKYCORE SRL si declaratia pe propria raspundere redactata pe numele Stan Stefan), atestare care implica inclusiv identitatea persoanei, respectiv incheiate de suspecta Dragan Ioana Candida (contractul de asistenta juridica seria B nr.855621/2013) care implica si stabilirea identitatii partii cu care s-a incheiat contractul”;
- „in acord cu procurorul, retine ca suspectii au savarsit infractiunea de fals material in inscrisuri oficiale, prev. de art.320 Cod penal cu aplicarea art.35 alin.1 Cod penal, cu vinovatia ceruta de lege, fiind astfel exclusa posibilitatea ca o alta persoana sa-si fi atribuit identitatea persoanei vatamate si astfel sa-i induca in eroare cu privire la identitate pe cei doi suspecti”;
„In concluzie, fata de cele expuse anterior, judecatorul nu poate retine solicitarea suspectilor in sensul de a se dispune o solutie de clasare fata de acestia pentru savarsirea infractiunii de fals material in inscrisuri oficiale, prev. de art. 320 Cod penal cu aplic art. 35 alin 1 Cod penal.”
De asemenea, „judecatorul retine ca suspectii au comis faptele in cadrul atributiilor ce le reveneau in calitate de avocati”. Definitiva, conform art.318 ali. 16 Cod procedura penala.
Ce face Baroul Bucureşti?
Una din partile vatamate, in persoana domnului Ştefan Stan, om de afaceri si Vicepresedinte al ROCCIJA - Camera de Comert si Industrie a Romaniei in Japonia, a adresat petiţii Baroului Bucureşti, începând din 2016, solicitând cercetarea disciplinară a celor doi avocaţi.
Prima sesizare, transmisă înainte de încheierea dosarului penal, a fost tratată în derizoriu. După apariţia sentinţei, acesta a revenit cu solicitarea. La rândul său, societatea Gama Proconsult SRL, care a fost sancţionata în baza unui act falsificat emis de Skycore SRL, s-a adresat instituţiei.
Abia marti, 14 Mai 2019 - coincidenţă sau nu, în perioada de realegere a conducerii Baroului Bucuresti - Consiliul Baroului a luat cazul în discuţie, invitând ambii petenţi, iar ulterior, separat, pe cei doi avocaţi, pentru a-şi expune punctele de vedere. La discuţii a fost invitat să asiste şi un reprezentant din partea portalului dedicat antreprenorilor România Business, iar decanul Baroului, av. Ion Dragne, a confirmat că se fac verificări foarte serioase şi că o decizie urmează să ne fie comunicată.
Petenţii au susţinut că există premisele pentru cercetarea disciplinară a celor doi avocaţi, putând să se ajungă la suspendarea lor si chiar excluderea din Baroul Bucuresti pentru gravele incalcari ale statutului avocatului, incompatibile cu profesia pe care Dragan Ioana Candida si Dragoi Orlando Catalin ar fi trebuit sa o presteze cu onoare si corectitudine, conform juramantului.
„Mă bucur că acest caz este luat în discuţie, chiar dacă la trei ani de la prima sesizare pe care am adresat-o. Am încredere că Baroul Bucureşti îl va trata cu maximă seriozitate şi nu va încerca să «acopere» faptele acestor doi avocaţi, pentru că, altminteri, Baroul Bucuresti ar transmite un mesaj că orice avocat poate să comită abateri grave, mai exact fapte de natura penala, fără să rişte vreo sancţiune”, a afirmat, la finalul discuţiilor, dl. Ştefan Stan.
Considerăm că acest caz prezintă interes pentru mediul de afaceri din România, fiind un indemn pentru antreprenori de a-şi alege cu mare grijă colaboratorii si pentru a permite opiniei publice sa cunoasca avocatii si firmele de avocatura care inteleg sa practice meseria de avocat cu incalcarea grava a legii tocmai de cei care prin statut depun un juramant pentru apararea si respectarea legii.
Cu siguranta SCPA Dragan & Partners si avocatii Dragan Ioana Candida, Dragoi Orlando Catalin fac parte dintre cei ce ar trebui evitati indiferent de decizia ce va fi luata in acest caz de Baroul Bucuresti.
In sprijinul celor de mai sus, pentru moment publicam link-ul de pe www.portal.just.ro, de unde rezulta cele retinute in sarcina avocatei Dragan Ioana Candida - 4 fapte materiale de fals in inscrisuri oficiale si 5 fapte materiale pentru aceeasi infractiune in sarcina lui Dragoi Orlando Catalin: http://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=200000000362771&id_inst=2
Totodată, redacţia „România Business” aşteaptă pe această cale o comunicare oficială din partea Baroului Bucureşti cu privire la măsurile întreprinse în această speţă, ce reprezinta un real interes atat pentru petenti, cat si pentru ceilalti avocati membrii ai Baroului Bucuresti, care, cu siguranta, nu-si doresc ca imaginea sa le fie asociata cu cea a reprezentantilor SCPA Dragan & Partners.
Is it All About VAT for the Leaders of the Automotive Industry? (2nd chapter)
Insights into Jaguar Land Rover, Autohaus Tabor AND AUCOTRAS Gmbh
The transaction between the Romanian client and Autohaus Tabor Gmbh involves a Jaguar Land Rover authorized dealer in Hungary and Aucotras Gmbh, a fraudulent German trader. How does Jaguar Land Rover and Tata Motors react? With dismissal and rejection of acknowledgement.
The UK-based luxury vehicle manufacturer is led by CEO Dr Ralf Speth who has redirected all of the client’s inquiries and requests for assistance to amicably settle the case to the European Customer Service Department.
Jaguar Land Rover Denies Any Knowledge About the Real History of The Jaguar XE
Our team contacted the office of Jaguar Land Rover’s CEO and asked the management to provide relevant explanations about the actual circumstances of the transaction of the Jaguar XE, sourced by Autohaus Tabor Gmbh from Autopalace Buda Kft – Jaguar’s authorized dealer in Hungary.
Although JLR publish and stand by a fully transparent policy, we did not receive any direct response from the CEO’s office. We were later contacted by the Customer Service Department of JLR in Europe who denied any knowledge about the steps of the transactions performed between JLR UK, Autopalace Buda Kft, Aucotras Gmbh and Autohaus Tabor Gmbh.
So, if the manufacturer denies knowing about their dealers’ practices to avoid increased VAT and other taxes, how can customers trust JLR’s dealerships? Shouldn’t JLR’s headquarters look into these non-commercial and faulty practices? It seems they are content only with denying even when presented with evidence such as supporting documentation issued by German authorities.
PDI in Hungary after Delivery to Aucotras Gmbh?
What is PDI? As explained by the Hungarian JLR dealer the PDI is a Pre-delivery Inspection protocol which confirms that a vehicle is compliant from a technical point of view with its specifications.
However, Autopalace Buda Kft performed the PDI on the Jaguar XE after it was registered on Aucotras Gmbh. Or was the registration made only on paper for VAT evasion? Or, was the vehicle, manufactured for the Hungarian market, physically taken to Germany for registration and then returned to Hungary for inspection and then exported back to Germany?
The Romanian Client Reveals
The Romanian client has already taken the necessary steps to uncover what leaders of the automotive industry are practicing at the expense of clients’ worldwide. Considering that Autopalace Buda Kft sold Jaguar vehicles in bulk to Autohaus Tabor we are not certain that this is an isolated case.
Autohaus Tabor Gmbh – Is this the German Standard in Business?
ONLINE BAIT MARKETING PRACTICES
The German Trade and Invest (GTAI) business development agency highlights the contribution of the automotive sector to Germany’s economic growth. It’s considered to be the backbone industry in Germany and positions the country as a global leader in terms of high-tech automotive products and innovative technology.
But how can the safest and strictest market conditions allow for companies to mislead customers? Autohaus Tabor Gmbh, a German vehicles trader, disrupts the German standards by performing improper marketing and false advertising, non-commercial practices and by infringing the trust and privacy of its clients.
Who is Autohaus Tabor Gmbh?
Autohaus Tabor Gmbh is a German car dealership operating in Freiburg, Achern and Kehl in Germany. The company is an official dealer for Dacia and Renault but also sells & buys other new and used car brands including Jaguar and Land Rovers.
The information on the www.autohaus-tabor.de website shows that the dealership’s services include buy-backs, free evaluation, fair and trustworthy pricing and that their team handles all aspects connected to de-registering the client’s vehicle. Also, Autohaus Tabor Gmbh promises payment to the client within 24 hours for the car.
Discrepancy Between Published Statements and Actual Financials
Although Autohaus Tabor publishes that it has over 50,000 customers, the figures don’t add up with their financial statements submitted with the German authorities. The 2017 net income declared accrues to a low EUR 746,421.75 up from the previous year’s level of EUR 456,158.29.
When it comes to property value, for Y 2017, Autohaus Tabor shows a value of EUR 168,671 up from EUR 150,387 the previous year.
But this is not where the discrepancy ends. Despite having a strict code of conduct which forbids any form of non-transparent practices, Autohaus Tabor fails to comply with its own rules.
How Did the Romanian Client Reach the German Trader?
During November 2018, around Black Friday period, the Romanian client found the Jaguar XE advertised on www.mobile.de by Autohaus Tabor at a 40% discounted price of only about EUR 28,000.
The client contacted the seller through the online platform mobile.de to receive more information about the vehicle which was presented as having only 10 km on board and a 1-day registration and specifications which later proved to be missing on the car.
Once the client received the requested information from Autohaus Tabor’s staff via email, and the documentation was verified and approved by Raiffeisen Leasing SA, the client paid the price and went to Germany to pick-up the vehicle.
Bait Marketing and False Advertising
Although the Jaguar XE was advertised as having only 10 km on board, the vehicle actually registered 170 km as mentioned in the contract signed. So, a clear difference between what is advertised and the reality. Can we still trust the German marketing practices to be correct and fair?
Once the client arrived at the premises of the Seller, he was announced that the car was registered on his personal name for timing reasons. The client never gave Autohaus Tabor permission to use his name and found it irrelevant as his company was the party involved in the transaction. Is this how German companies understand to apply GDPR regulations?
What also came as an unpleasant surprise to the Buyer was that specifications which were published on mobile.de were actually missing off the car. The client also has the confirmation of Jaguar Land Rover’s authorized dealer in Romania concerning the inexistent specifications.
Does www.mobile.de Assume Any Responsibility?
When contacted by the client who explained the entire situation regarding the Jaguar XE advertised on www.mobile.de by Autohaus Tabor Gmbh, the online platform’s customer service team advised that they do not verify the accuracy of the information published by dealers.
As a technical platform mobile.de does not get involved in the actual transaction. Also, the responsibility for the information published on mobile.de is assumed by the dealers.
A Few Last Words
Germany may be a global leader in the automotive industry but there are significant breaches in trade practices and marketing regulations.
Can Germany afford to have grey areas in this sector? Unfortunately, it’s at the expense of clients worldwide which easily interact with German companies through online platforms such as mobile.de.
Jaguar Land Rover – Covering Its Tracks in the EU (1st chapter)
The CROWN JEWEL
During December 2018, a Romanian client purchased a Jaguar XE model from Autohaus Tabor Gmbh, a famous vehicle dealer in Germany. Little did the client know that the vehicle would prove to be a fraud risk, financial liability and would bring damages to its reputation through direct association with a German company which underwent fraud investigation for EUR 10 mil.
THE GERMAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY STANDARD
Not So German After All…
The client found the vehicle marketed on the online platform www.mobile.de at a 40% discount, a one day registration and with only 10 km on board. After carrying out the necessary due diligence procedures required by Raiffeisen Leasing SA and Autohaus Tabor, the client went to Germany to pick up the vehicle.
Upon arrival, although the transaction was clearly carried out by the Romanian company, Autohaus Tabor registered the vehicle on the personal name of the administrator, without his consent.
Once the client returned to Romania, the missing specifications led to a detailed inspection of the car with the Romanian authorized dealer, Premium Auto SRL. The dealer confirmed the client’s findings.
Links with A German Company Investigated For 10 Mil EUR Fraud
Considering the problems already faced, the Romanian client commenced serious investigations of the car’s history. What it discovered was that the car had been previously registered on Aucotras Gmbh, which was investigated by the German Prosecution Office for EUR 10 mil fraud.
Also, the registration was made before the PDI (pre-delivery inspection) performed in Hungary, where the vehicle originated from. The voice features in Hungarian language prove that this car was manufactured for the Hungarian market and not for export purposes to a non-authorized Jaguar dealer, namely Autohaus Tabor Gmbh.
Misleading Advertising and Bait Marketing by the German Trader
The Jaguar XE was marketed on www.mobile.de online platform as having 10 km on board and with the specifications which were proven to be missing. When the vehicle was handed over to the Romanian client, it showed an actual 170km on board.
The client brought the entire situation to the attention of the UK Jaguar Land Rover management, including the CEO dr. Ralf Speth, the management of Tata Motors, and the Hungarian dealer Autopalace Buda Kft. All of these entities failed to bring clear explanations about the vehicle’s actual status and its history, which led the client to request the intervention of the competent European and domestic authorities in Romania, Germany and Hungary.
Ro.Business Contacts Jaguar Land Rover And Autohaus Tabor
In an effort to prove our transparency and correct conduct, we contacted the UK Jaguar Land Rover team, the German trader Autohaus Tabor Gmbh as well as the Hungarian Jaguar dealer inquiring about the situation involving the Jaguar XE.
The management of Jaguar Land Rover in the UK redirected our inquiries to their European customer department, one Autohaus Tabor Gmbh’s owner had a defensive reaction towards our questions, while the Hungarian dealer provided no feedback at all.
We will publish further in-depth details about each aspect involving the Jaguar XE to prove how a British luxury car manufacturer understands to abide by the European commercial standards, rules and regulations and how German companies understand to do a fair and transparent business.
Could this have any connection with the Brexit? Or is Jaguar Land Rover concerned about losing the EUR 125 mil. European funding in Slovakia for its new manufacturing plant and that’s why they’re avoiding to comment directly?