Page 74 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

and Bill of landing, and also the fact that, for a new registration of an imported used
car in Japan, the necessary documents are the assignment certificate documented by

the import dealer (not by the foreign exporting dealer), automobile inspection certificate,
and CRF (Clean Report Finding). Considering these facts, the High Court thought that

an imported car dealer can deceive a purchaser or at least neglect confirmation of
the former foreign owner of the car and confirmation of the fact that the car was not stolen.
In fact, according to the fact-finding by the High Court, the Inter Auto Company

dealt with the trade of the car with the exporting dealer in Dubai only through facsimile,
and the former did not receive nor was shown by the latter the assignment certificate

or any other document confirming ownership, or any documentation of car certification
or car inspection certificate.
Moreover, the High Court mentioned that, even though in line with the practice

in Japan, an importing dealer would have kept the documents certifying ownership,
if shown by the foreign counterpart exporting dealer, but that in the disputed case, such
a document was not presented before the court.

As other elements arose which raised the suspicion of laundering, the High
Court mentioned that there was no sufficient proof for maintaining that the car had

really existed in the U.A.E. at the moment of trade. In addition to that, it pointed out
the fact that the consecutive car transactions after Inter Auto’s import took place over
a very short period through Inter Auto, N Motors, and Kosei Manufacturing to B.
38
The High Court doubted a superficial and apparent change of owners, disguised through
these transactions.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the doubt regarding laundering has not
been completely cleared.

Supreme Court’s position

When comparing the High Court’s with the Supreme Court’s position, some

characteristics of the Supreme Court’s position come to light. The Supreme Court refers
to the Japanese car import practice. It found that in practice, no handing over or

38 According to the fact-finding, the name of the party who actually made the import declaration was not
Inter Auto.

72