Government targets BMWs being shipped to China for lucrative profit
At least 35,000 luxury cars are purchased legally at dealerships every year and then sent out of the country to be turned over for profit.
December 05, 2013 at 04:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
BMW is known for representing a luxury car brand meant for an exclusive group of drivers who live a high-end lifestyle and can afford the lofty price tag. But the question is how much are consumers really willing to spend to have the ultimate driving machine in their garage?
If you're in the market to purchase a new BMW SUV in the U.S., you're looking at a sticker price of about $56,000; however, if you head over to China the same vehicle is sold for a around three times that amount at a whopping $153,000. With that significant of a difference, there is a large window for illegal arbitrage, and that is just what prosecutors are starting to see around the country.
According to The Wall Street Journal, at least 35,000 luxury cars are purchased legally at dealerships every year and then sent out of the country to be turned over for profit. In an effort to prevent more shipments from leaving the U.S., federal prosecutors have targeted and seized a number of high-end cars at various ports in recent months, before the automobiles left the country.
While some argue this type of business is completely legal since after purchasing a car it becomes the user's property to do with as they wish, prosecutors believe differently, stating that the transaction becomes illegal when a buyer misrepresents their intentions during the purchase. In fact, most car dealerships now require new car buyers to sign an agreement before they even drive the car off the lot that promises not to export the car for a certain period of time. This kind of arbitrage not only goes against a dealer's integrity, but dealers who knowingly sell cars for export can face fines and the withholding of vehicles by manufacturers.
With these types of incidents becoming more prevalent in the U.S., the government is on high alert to ensure that the illegal transport of high-end vehicles such as BMW and Porsche are curbed as much as possible.
So who's right in this scenario? While neither side of the argument has been justified in court just yet, with more and more cases arising, the government continues to seize the property and assets of exporters that are caught, and prosecutors expect exporters to begin contesting those seizures as more cases are filed.
The government isn't the only party that is feeling undermined by these illegal acts. China has also voiced its concerns regarding companies that charge more for cars and other goods in China. Automakers are also feeling the backlash as it is their responsibility to ensure each car is sold with the proper warranties and equipment for the country in which the cars are sold to be driven.
Unfortunately, no matter how much government officials and car dealerships try to monitor and lessen this kind of behavior, there is no way to completely stop the arbitrage of these vehicles until more cases are brought to court and real laws are put into place.
For more related news on check out the articles below:
BMW is known for representing a luxury car brand meant for an exclusive group of drivers who live a high-end lifestyle and can afford the lofty price tag. But the question is how much are consumers really willing to spend to have the ultimate driving machine in their garage?
If you're in the market to purchase a new BMW SUV in the U.S., you're looking at a sticker price of about $56,000; however, if you head over to China the same vehicle is sold for a around three times that amount at a whopping $153,000. With that significant of a difference, there is a large window for illegal arbitrage, and that is just what prosecutors are starting to see around the country.
According to The Wall Street Journal, at least 35,000 luxury cars are purchased legally at dealerships every year and then sent out of the country to be turned over for profit. In an effort to prevent more shipments from leaving the U.S., federal prosecutors have targeted and seized a number of high-end cars at various ports in recent months, before the automobiles left the country.
While some argue this type of business is completely legal since after purchasing a car it becomes the user's property to do with as they wish, prosecutors believe differently, stating that the transaction becomes illegal when a buyer misrepresents their intentions during the purchase. In fact, most car dealerships now require new car buyers to sign an agreement before they even drive the car off the lot that promises not to export the car for a certain period of time. This kind of arbitrage not only goes against a dealer's integrity, but dealers who knowingly sell cars for export can face fines and the withholding of vehicles by manufacturers.
With these types of incidents becoming more prevalent in the U.S., the government is on high alert to ensure that the illegal transport of high-end vehicles such as BMW and Porsche are curbed as much as possible.
So who's right in this scenario? While neither side of the argument has been justified in court just yet, with more and more cases arising, the government continues to seize the property and assets of exporters that are caught, and prosecutors expect exporters to begin contesting those seizures as more cases are filed.
The government isn't the only party that is feeling undermined by these illegal acts. China has also voiced its concerns regarding companies that charge more for cars and other goods in China. Automakers are also feeling the backlash as it is their responsibility to ensure each car is sold with the proper warranties and equipment for the country in which the cars are sold to be driven.
Unfortunately, no matter how much government officials and car dealerships try to monitor and lessen this kind of behavior, there is no way to completely stop the arbitrage of these vehicles until more cases are brought to court and real laws are put into place.
For more related news on check out the articles below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250