Court Opinion

ID: 9475633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:33:25.669992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:49.972789
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in Judge Norris’s opinion with the exception of the reversal of defendant’s conviction on the false certification counts, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1988(b) and 1990c. I respectfully dissent on the issue of those counts. Under the majority’s interpretation, conduct which Congress specifically defined as criminal will go unpunished in the Ninth Circuit.
In 1972, when Congress added the Odometer Requirements to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, sub-chapter IV of chapter 46 of title 15 of the United States Code, it stated in the congressional findings and declaration of purpose:
The Congress hereby finds that purchasers, when buying motor vehicles, rely heavily on the odometer reading as an index of the condition and value of such vehicle; that purchasers are entitled to rely on the odometer reading as an accurate reflection of the mileage actually traveled by the vehicle; that an accurate indication of the mileage traveled by a motor vehicle assists the purchaser in determining its safety and reliability; and that motor vehicles move in the current of interstate and foreign commerce or affect such commerce. It is therefore the purpose of this subchapter to prohibit tampering with odometers on motor vehicles and to establish certain safeguards for the protection of purchasers with respect to the sale of motor vehicles having altered or reset odometers.
15 U.S.C. § 1981.
To protect purchasers of motor vehicles, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure to a transferee of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. 15 U.S.C. § 1988(a). Congress also decreed that no transferor shall violate any such rule or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure. 15 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Simply stated, Congress re*1425quired that any transferor of an automobile must give a written, truthful disclosure to the transferee of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer.
The regulations promulgated under section 1988(b) define a transferor as “any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest.” 49 C.F.R. § 580.3. The defendant in this case had no ownership interest. Therefore, he was not a transferor. However, even though the defendant was not a transferor, he nevertheless did provide certifications and the certifications were false. Congress specifically dealt with persons who, although not transferors and therefore not required to provide certifications, nevertheless give false certifications. Title 15 U.S.C. § 1990c(a) was passed in 1976. In that section, under which the defendant was prosecuted, Congress stated:
§ 1990c. Criminal penalties; ...
(a) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits any act or causes to be done any act that violates any provision of this subchapter or knowingly and willfully omits to do any act or causes to be omitted any act that is required by any such provision shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Congress did not limit section 1990c(a) to “transferors”; instead, Congress made “any person” liable. “[A]ny person” who commits an act which violates a provision of the subchapter is guilty of violating the statute. Filing a false certificate is an act which violates a provision of the subchap-ter. 15 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Thus, under section 1990c, “any person” who commits that act is guilty.
• The defendant asserts, and the majority concludes, that liability under section 1990c is derivative of section 1988 and is dependent upon showing that the defendant was a transferor. The majority cites McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, 633 F.2d 226, 230 (1st Cir.1980), and Ryan v. Edwards, 592 F.2d 756, 762 (4th Cir.1979), for the proposition that one must have some legal or
beneficial ownership in a motor vehicle before there is liability under the odometer subchapter. However, in both cases the courts held only that civil liability under section 1989 was derivative of section 1988 and dependent upon a showing that the defendant was a transferor.
The language of sections 1989 and 1990c differ. Section 1989 imposes civil liability on any person who with intent to defraud violates any requirement imposed by the odometer subchapter. Only transferors are required to give certificates. Section 1990c, which imposes criminal liability, is much broader. It provides that any person who knowingly and willfully commits any act that violates any provision of the sub-chapter is criminally liable. The giving of a false certificate is such an act.
McGinty and Ryan are, therefore, not applicable when criminal liability is based on section 1990c, a provision which was enacted in 1976, four years after the adoption of sections 1988 and 1989, to strengthen enforcement in light of the ineffectiveness of civil remedies in reducing odometer tampering. The Senate Report accompanying the Senate bill which was passed stated that:
While Title IV established a comprehensive law prohibiting odometer tampering, it provided for enforcement only through private civil actions or injunctive actions. In over two years, only one injunctive enforcement action has been brought by the Attorney General and few consumers have utilized the private civil action provisions. In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, officials of the Department of Transportation indicated that without additional enforcement powers and sanctions, it would be virtually impossible to put a halt to the trafficking of vehicles in interstate commerce which had been subject to odometer tampering.
5. Rep. No. 94-155, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, 6, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1718, 1723.
Thus, it is clear that while a transferor may be the only one liable in civil proceed*1426ings, the limitation was specifically and intentionally eliminated by Congress for the imposition of criminal liability. To conclude otherwise thwarts the general purpose of the statute and makes fine-line distinctions contrary to congressional intent and statutory language. The defendant committed prohibited, criminal acts by filing false certificates. Therefore, I must dissent from the majority’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction on the false certification counts.