Counterfeit Auto Parts Prosecutions Detailed Explanation With Case Law
Overview of Counterfeit Auto Parts Offences
Counterfeit auto parts are fake or substandard replacements for genuine car components, often designed to appear identical to the original branded parts. They pose serious safety risks, including brake failure, engine malfunction, and accidents. Legal frameworks generally prosecute such acts under:
Trademark Infringement – using a brand without authorization.
Consumer Protection Laws – endangering public safety by selling unsafe products.
Criminal Fraud – intentional deception for financial gain.
Customs and Import Laws – illegal import/export of counterfeit goods.
Courts worldwide have increasingly taken a hard stance against counterfeit auto parts due to public safety implications.
Notable Prosecutions and Case Law
1. United States v. Shi (2013) – Counterfeit Airbags
Facts: Shi and co-defendants imported counterfeit airbags and sold them as genuine parts for major car brands. The airbags did not meet federal safety standards.
Charges: Wire fraud, trafficking in counterfeit goods, and conspiracy.
Outcome: Shi was sentenced to 6 years in prison, and co-defendants faced fines up to $500,000.
Significance: Courts highlighted the life-threatening risk of counterfeit auto parts, emphasizing that fraud involving safety components is treated severely.
2. European Union v. Fakes Auto Parts Network (2015) – EU-wide Operation
Facts: A criminal network across Italy, Germany, and Spain was producing counterfeit brake pads, filters, and spark plugs for luxury cars. Parts were distributed through online platforms and unauthorized dealers.
Charges: Trademark counterfeiting, endangering consumer safety, and organized crime violations.
Outcome:
Leaders received 5–7 years imprisonment.
€2.5 million worth of counterfeit parts were seized.
Significance: Demonstrated the EU’s cross-border coordination in dismantling counterfeit auto part networks.
3. People v. Golden Parts Co. (California, 2016)
Facts: Golden Parts Co. sold counterfeit brake pads and suspension components claiming they were OEM (original equipment manufacturer). Several accidents occurred due to part failure.
Charges: Fraud, false advertising, and violation of California Penal Code §350 (trading in counterfeit goods).
Outcome:
Company fined $1.2 million.
CEO sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Courts recognized direct liability of corporate officers for unsafe counterfeit products.
4. R v. Zheng (UK, 2017) – Counterfeit Headlights
Facts: Zheng imported counterfeit headlights and tail lights for BMW and Mercedes vehicles. Labels mimicked genuine products.
Charges: Selling counterfeit goods under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Outcome:
Zheng received 4 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of vehicles and stock valued at £250,000.
Significance: UK courts reinforced consumer safety and intellectual property protection, treating fake auto parts as criminally culpable, not just civil matters.
5. United States v. Peng (2018) – Counterfeit Brake Pads
Facts: Peng manufactured brake pads labeled with a well-known OEM brand. Pads were sold online and installed by small garages. Investigations revealed several brake failures.
Charges: Mail and wire fraud, trademark infringement, and interstate transport of counterfeit goods.
Outcome:
Peng sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Restitution to affected car owners: $450,000.
Significance: Demonstrates that online distribution channels of counterfeit auto parts attract federal scrutiny.
6. China Auto Parts Case – Global Recall (2019)
Facts: A Chinese supplier exported counterfeit steering components to North America, affecting 50,000 vehicles. Parts bore forged certification stamps.
Charges: Exporting counterfeit goods, fraud, and violation of vehicle safety regulations.
Outcome:
Supplier blacklisted from international trade.
Coordinated recalls conducted by affected car companies.
Significance: Highlighted corporate accountability and international enforcement cooperation against counterfeit parts.
Key Takeaways
Severe penalties exist for counterfeit auto parts, especially when safety is compromised.
Courts treat such offences as criminal, not just civil, when there’s potential harm to the public.
Corporate officers and network leaders are personally liable.
Cross-border operations require coordinated legal enforcement.
Consumer safety and IP rights are often intertwined in prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments