Porsche paid in cash or stolen after all? Judge not convinced...

After more than two years of litigation (and depreciation), the seller of a Porsche Panamera 4 E-hybrid finally has clarity. The ‘buyer’ failed to convince the judge that he would have paid the €80k purchase price in bundles of cash. The judge is therefore assuming that the ‘buyer’ stole the Porsche offered on Marketplace, which is why the court has been unable to find any evidence to support the claim. The case began in the summer of 2022 and the ruling in this case dates from two years later. However, it was only published last week (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:7701). Before it came to a final judgment, there was a evidence order needed and came as many as three interlocutory judgments. The common thread is clear to the court: “one of the parties to these proceedings [...] must be [knowingly] lying about what happened at the time.”. But what exactly happened? Attorney Robert van Ewijk discusses the case.

Porsche for €80k for sale on Marktplaats

The Rotterdam owner of a hybrid Porsche put it up for sale on Marktplaats in 2022. Then an interested party from Utrecht came forward. He indicates that he is willing to pay €80,000. The Rotterdam man agreed and the Utrecht man came by on a Saturday evening to view the car. Two weeks later the man from Utrecht comes by again. The seller and he go together to a garage to have it inspected. When it turns out to be closed, they make an appointment for the following day to have the car inspected by another garage. However, that did not happen. That same evening, the Porsche is returned to the license plate register of the RDW transferred to the name of the man from Utrecht.

Porsche disappeared from driveway

The following morning, the car disappears from the Rotterdam man's driveway: the Utrechter has taken it. The Rotterdammer reports the car as stolen and shows the car key to the police. He does not have the spare key. The Utrechter filed a report against the Rotterdam man, alleging that he had made a false report.

In the winter of 2023, the Porsche was found by police in a parking garage and seized. The car would have been parked there for several weeks.

Someone is lying, but who?

The judge's task in this case was to decide who owns the Porsche. Is that the Rotterdam man because the Porsche was stolen from him? Or is it the Utrecht man who had bought the car neatly? In his interlocutory rulings, the judge has not yet decided, but it is clear to him that someone is lying:

“In this case, based on what happened in August 2022, the court must assess who currently owns the Porsche. The parties” stories about what happened during that period are diametrically opposed. Indeed, those stories diverge to such an extent that there can be no misunderstanding or false recollection, but that one of the parties in these proceedings must be knowingly lying about what happened at the time."

Presumption of evidence: possessor is presumed to be the owner

The Utrecht judge takes a legal approach and invokes the presumption of evidence of Article 3:109 of the Dutch Civil Code. That presumption of evidence implies that the person who has a case in its power, is also the owner thereof. As a result of this presumption of evidence, it is up to the other party to prove that not the possessor, but himself, is the owner of the property. The court, however, finds that the assertions of the Justice of the Peace are so implausible that it finds the legal presumption of evidence already refuted in advance. The court has several reasons for this:

1. The ‘buyer’ failed to demonstrate that he had sufficient means to buy such an expensive car. He had an aggregate income of just over €4,000 the year before. Therefore, the judge does not believe that he would have €80,000 in cash to buy the car a year later.
2. The buyer's bank balance at the time of purchase was €11.85 negative.
3. The man's statements are internally contradictory. He says he owns a thriving scooter store. Because he invests everything back into his business, his aggregate income was so low. On that, the judge sharply notes that if he invested everything in the store, then that means he cannot have money to buy an expensive Porsche.
4. Another contradictory statement is the announcement by the Utrecht man that his girlfriend would have taken him to Rotterdam to pick up the Porsche. When the judge asked if she could then perhaps explain that cash had been paid for, the man suddenly indicated that she was not there after all.

Opposed to the buyer's contentions are the seller's contentions. The judge was also critical of these. For example, the judge found it strange that the seller showed the transfer codes to the Utrecht man and that he had the spare key. The seller said that the judge had used a ruse to ensure that he showed the codes and argued that the latter must have stolen the spare key.

Judge orders evidence

The judge found the Utrecht's statements so implausible that in his ruling of June 12, 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:7819) orders him to prove that the seller transferred the car to him. Thus, he will then also have to prove that he paid. From the final judgment of March 26, 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:7701) it appears that this did not work out. The Utrechter offered the following:

1. First, the man showed photos of 7 stacks of banknotes of - according to his claim - €10,000 each. However, according to the judge, this does not show that he paid €80,000 to the seller. Not only is a pile of €10,000 short, but the photo does not show that the money was handed over to the seller. Moreover, the man did not explain how he got the money.
2. Furthermore, the man showed a photo of the trunk of the Porsche, on which part of the seller's phone would be visible. According to the Utrechter, this shows that the seller was present when the car was transferred to the RDW's registration register. Leaving aside the fact that it has not been proven that the telephone belonged to the seller, the photograph also does not in itself prove that the seller was present at the time the photograph was taken, let alone that the gentlemen would have transferred the car together.

Car not sold but stolen: tort and damages

Therefore, the judge in this civil action concluded that the Utrecht court should have awarded the Porsche “without [plaintiff's] consent [has] taken”. In civil law, this provides a wrongful act up. Therefore, the Utrechtian must return the car as soon as the criminal attachment is lifted and must compensation pay to the seller. Those damages must be paid during a damage state proceedings be budgeted.

Criminal court rules otherwise

What makes this issue extra interesting is that the criminal court ruled diametrically differently. Indeed, on July 21, 2025, the Utrecht was acquitted of the charged theft of the Porsche (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:8846). The criminal court considered that the reading of the facts offered by the Utrechter, cannot simply be dismissed as implausible. Although the course of events outlined by the Utrechter was unusual, that does not mean that it is therefore incorrect. Moreover, the sentencing judge found no evidence in the record that contradicted the Utrecht's account of the facts. Therefore, the sentencing judge “not to the belief that the defendant unlawfully took the car away”. The man is therefore acquitted.

Criminal and civil courts not bound by each other's judgment

These rulings show that two judges (the criminal judge and the civil judge) can reach different judgments on the same facts. Moreover, they are not bound by each other's judgment. The criminal judge also says something about this in his judgment:

“The court has taken note of the fact that the defendant and the declarant on this issue are also involved with each other in a civil case. In doing so, the court notes that the judgment in the civil case and this criminal judgment must in principle be considered separately. In the criminal case, the court will decide whether, based on the criminal file, there is sufficient legal and convincing evidence for what the defendant has been charged with, namely taking the car on August 17, 2022, without right or permission and then keeping it with him.”

Lawsuit over expensive car

Expensive cars are more often the subject of lawsuits. For example, Lexys Lawyers' website previously published a blog about a dispute involving the buyer of a defective Porsche, who in turn had concealed vital information. That buyer also did not tell the truth to the judge and received a hefty slap on the wrist. Another case involved the buyer of a Ferrari that the seller of fraud accused. Incidentally, the buyer went wet in that case as well. The Ferrari dealer was in the right on all counts stated. Besides the fact that the three proceedings were all about (quite expensive) cars, they have in common that the manner in which the procedural law has been applied has been decisive.