Nobody likes paying traffic fines, but few have had the gumption to avoid them so thoroughly as Mario Hili. The 64-year-old Australian man came up with an ingenious method of fooling police into canceling any fines against him by reporting his car stolen. Logically, if the car hadn't been in his possession when cameras snapped photos of its license plate, he couldn't have been behind the wheel, and therefore whatever infraction its driver was guilty of couldn't have been his doing but that of the thief.

Except that he was lying. According to the Geelong Advertiser, Hili was caught fibbing about the frequent theft of his car after reporting it stolen for the 21st time in 13 years. To his credit, we suppose, Hili fessed up to his crimes after being caught, pleading guilty to seven counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception and three counts of making a false document.

A judge convicted Hili and fined him 2,500 Australian dollars, though it's worth noting that no demerits were added to his license.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 20 Comments
      Narom
      • 1 Year Ago
      That would be jail time over here.
      ryan_four
      • 1 Year Ago
      What a deal!
      rmt_1
      • 1 Year Ago
      Unless there's a lot more to this story, I smell the stench of B.S. about it. While I'm not in a position to question the stated facts of this case, logically, what wasn't stated or explained makes me believe that something more went on here. Did Hili report the same car was stolen 21 times over the 13 years or more than one car? Did the police "recover" the car each time it was "stolen" or did Hili tell the police he "found" it on his own? Did Hili ever file an insurance claim regarding any of the the "thefts" of his car, thus committing insurance fraud? Did the police ever try to identify the "car thief" from the traffic camera photograph? How did the police miss the fact that Hili was reporting his car stolen on the average of every 7.5 months or that Hili's car was given a traffic citation from a traffic camera each time it was "stolen"? Did Hili's auto insurer ever raise his rates for having his car "stolen" so many times or wonder why he may or may not have ever filed a theft claim over those 13 years? See, lots of unanswered questions.
      Donny Hoover
      • 1 Year Ago
      So I'm just wondering when they are going to punish the criminals who had the cameras installed.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
        rmt_1
        • 1 Year Ago
        With all due respect, your "Lying is the best policy" theory for encounters with members of a state's police is unbelievably stupid and with federal agents downright suicidal. Lying to either can turn a situation where you are in no real legal jeopardy, no matter what they say to you, into an easy "obstruction of justice" conviction for a state's police or a felony conviction for a federal agent. Unlike TV shows, there's rarely definitive forensics evidence, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, and in cases with where the first two things are true, people often manage to talk themselves into a conviction and jail time. It is always easier to prove someone is lying than it is to find the absolute truth about anything and lying can be regarded legally as "consciousness of guilt" or as an "act of a guilty mind". Additionally, "lying" to a federal agent is a crime on its own and what is and isn't a lie is often subject to the interpretation of the case's prosecutor; just ask Martha Stewart what she got convicted for. Basically, if you ever feel you are in any legal jeopardy with someone with a badge, you should say, "I would like to see a lawyer before I feel we can continue and I wish to just remain silent over there while we wait" in the most polite and sincere tone you can muster, no matter how scared or angry you may feel. Never forget, you have the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, USE IT!
          rmt_1
          • 1 Year Ago
          @rmt_1
          @ jawlz1: I'm glad you understand my basic point about how lying is unwise and that any person who may be in "legal jeopardy" should exercise their constitutional right to remain silent, but don't confuse "remaining silent" with "refusing to talk". The former is a protected right, the later can make you a "material witness" in an ongoing investigation and subject to being held by the legal authorities. Since this difference is often a subjective decision by whomever is the lead investigator, being polite and sincere in tone can keep one out of trouble just as much as a good lawyer. However, you are dangerously mistaken by your belief that there is no difference between a LEO lying to you and you lying to a LEO; a LEO, state or federal, has been granted the "right to use deceptive means" in order to further an investigation by the US Supreme Court. As a legally accepted practice, it's not technically "lying". As I stated above, lying to a federal agent is a crime; "making false statements" is a violation of Section 1001 of Title 18 of the US Code (Wikipedia or most law books) and was one of the charges Martha Stewart was convicted of. Lying to a state LEO may not be unto itself a crime in most states, but how that lie can be leveraged by a skilled prosecutor into being seen by a jury as an "act of a guilty mind" and into being regarded as a "confession" is the reason here why lying to local cops is just as bad. Remember, looking for a way to "leverage" someone is also a legally accepted practice and lying by them or you gives them a big lever to use.
          jawlz1
          • 1 Year Ago
          @rmt_1
          I agree that lying is not the best policy. However, it is no more a crime for you to lie to an LEO (federal, state, or municipal) than it is for them to lie to you (neither is a crime). As you later state, the best policy is simply to refuse to talk to them in the first place.
        tinted up
        • 1 Year Ago
        The cops do it already. The best defense for anyone talking to the law is to lie, unless it is obviously a lie, in which case you say I don't know. I know after seeing LEO after LEO sitting on the standing saying I dont know multiple times to try and hide something that was to their knowledge.
          SloopJohnB
          • 1 Year Ago
          @tinted up
          Actually, the correct phrase is, "I don't recall." Saying, "I don't know." when it's possible to prove the LEO DID know is just looking for a contempt of court citation and/or perjury charge.
      Jason J McCabe
      • 1 Year Ago
      Photo block spray works seemlessly. It mindbogles me that everyone does not use it. Sure it's illegal, but it's also invisible :)
        Car Guy
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Jason J McCabe
        That only works if the camera uses a flash.................
      Car Guy
      • 1 Year Ago
      Keep voting liberal. Big government monitoring every facet of your life.
      trzjax
      • 1 Year Ago
      It was definitely worth it.
      56Jalopy
      • 1 Year Ago
      Thanks for the education.
      GN
      • 1 Year Ago
      Clever.
      greg.kim1
      • 1 Year Ago
      he got a raw deal. www.autobazaar.co.ke www.autotalk.co.ke
    • Load More Comments