It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oops! FBI agent seizes Ferrari for 'investigation', takes it for a test spin.. and smashes it (the

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


Do you know who the owner is, and know dude is set? I didn't see that anywhere in the article. Maybe he is a single guy, slaving away in a law firm, and financed it?




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


He won't be getting the car back, that's part of the point. It's a composite unibody, where it was damage means the car can not be made new again. It is a fairly rare collectors item, not just some Taurus. You can't just go to your local used car lot or auction and buy a replacement. There are only maybe 50 of these in the country, and most people are not about to let theirs go.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Its called a tort claim against the person - even though DOJ may have said they were not liable, it does not absolve the person.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 

Looks like you, me, and everyone else is wrong and are arguing over NOTHING.

Turns out, the Ferrari was stolen from a Dealership (not a "rich" guy) in 2003. The insurance company paid the dealership for the loss and technically took ownership of said Ferrari, and sort of "wrote it off" since they never thought they would see it again.

Flash forward 5 years later, the Feds confiscated the Ferrari in 2008 during an investigation of some criminals who had possession of it. In 2009 the Feds were moving it from one garage to another when they crashed it. That's when the "owner" (the insurance company) told the Feds to pay up. They've been stalling ever since.

Finally, in March 2011, the insurance company (owner) sued the DOJ to recover their losses who they can now blame on the Feds, even though it was the Feds who found it in the first place.

So there is no "rich owner". It's an corporation.

And like all corporations - WHO CARES? They get paid insurance premiums - they agreed to "cover" the Ferrari and it's part of the cost of doing business. NO SYMPATHY.

edit on 27-5-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


Disagree, it is clear that the 'owner' is the insurance company in the article and I referred to them by name previously. Them having a loss on their books increases the premiums for everyone.

The government should pay for the damage as it is their fault the vehicle was damaged whilst in their care!



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
and... the winner is....

The Feds:

Feds Off the Hook for Wrecked $750G Ferrari
www.foxnews.com...?test=latestnews

I would sure hope the Insurance company would go after the agent driving the car. If they could prove it wasnt' in the need for his case against the people...... he could be personally held responsible.

But, that won't happen either.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


That's on the higher side, You can get one for around 370 000, Just not sure about the U.S but sure the F50 does go for a ridiculous price considering its age and comfort. The usual Ferrari will range from about (used) 25,000 pounds.


You will get an absolute Knacker for 25 Grand.
If anyone thinks they can just get into a Ferrari for the first time and push it, they will likely end up in a hedge row like the agent in the OP. Ferrari do not offer driving courses to the new owner just as a gimmick.

PEACE,
RK



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join