Selling Out of Trust: How Fraud Continued Despite Court Orders

New to the term? Start with our plain-English guide: What is selling out of trust?

Timothy Bunn’s case presents the most troubling scenario in automotive finance fraud: systematic violations that continued even under court supervision. At Moxie Auto Sales in Lincoln, Nebraska, Bunn sold vehicles “out of trust” for months despite multiple audits, default notices, and ultimately a court restraining order. The scheme resulted in about $525,000 (£389,000) in losses to Nissan Motor Acceptance Company and demonstrates that traditional enforcement mechanisms are insufficient without close to real-time intervention capabilities.

Unlike fraud schemes that operate in shadows, Bunn’s violations occurred in plain sight of regulators, courts, and auditors.

The Moxie Auto Sales timeline

1. 2019Floorplan agreement signed with NMAC.
2. Months before mid-2021Vehicles already being sold out of trust, unseen between audits.
3. July to September 2021Three audits find problems.
4. October 2021Default notice issued.
5. 14 January 2022Loan terminated. A restraining order and contempt ruling follow, and the sales out of trust carry on.
6. April 2022The dealership stops trading.
7. November 2022Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.

Losses: about $525,000 (£389,000).

How Moxie Auto Sales systematically violated trust obligations

Bunn operated through a complex business structure designed to legitimise his dealership operations. Moxie Auto Sales LLC functioned as the primary dealership entity, with ownership split between Moxie Dealer Services Inc. (67%) and Christopher Investments LLC (33%). Bunn owned 100% of Dealer Services and managed daily operations, creating concentrated control that should have triggered enhanced oversight.

The floorplan financing agreement established with NMAC in 2019 followed standard industry practices. NMAC received security interests in all dealership assets except real property and filed appropriate UCC-1 financing statements. Personal guarantees from Bunn and Christopher Investments owners provided additional security layers.

However, these standard protections proved inadequate when systematic trust violations began. When vehicles subject to NMAC’s security interest were sold, Bunn was required to remit sale proceeds within specified timeframes. Instead, he consistently sold vehicles out of trust, meaning he used sale proceeds for other purposes rather than paying down the corresponding floorplan obligations.

The trust violations weren’t opportunistic or occasional. They represented a systematic pattern of diverting funds that were legally required to be held for NMAC’s benefit. This pattern continued for months whilst NMAC conducted regular oversight activities.

Why multiple audits failed to prevent ongoing trust violations

NMAC’s response to emerging problems followed industry best practices for escalating oversight. When Moxie Auto Sales began experiencing financial difficulties in mid-2021, NMAC conducted three separate audits between mid-July and mid-September 2021. These audits detected problems and led to a default notice issued in October 2021, with loan termination effective January 14, 2022.

However, the selling out of trust had been occurring for months before detection. More significantly, it continued even after the default notice and subsequent court orders. This timeline reveals fundamental limitations in traditional auditing approaches that rely on periodic snapshots rather than continuous monitoring.

The audits focused on physical inventory verification and documentation review but lacked real-time oversight of financial transactions. Between audit periods, Bunn had ample opportunity to sell vehicles and divert proceeds. Even when problems were identified, the gap between detection and intervention allowed continued violations.

Traditional audit methodology assumes that detection leads to compliance. The Bunn case demonstrates that some fraudsters will continue violations even when detected.

Court intervention proves insufficient without frequent monitoring

The legal proceedings that followed NMAC’s default notice demonstrate both the strengths and limitations of traditional enforcement mechanisms. NMAC filed a state court lawsuit seeking immediate payment and obtained a temporary restraining order requiring Moxie Auto Sales and Bunn to hold all NMAC collateral unimpaired and unencumbered.

When violations continued despite the court order, the state court found the defendants in contempt and sentenced Bunn to 30 days in jail, though the sentence was suspended. These legal interventions represent the strongest enforcement tools available in automotive finance disputes.

Yet even under court supervision, the trust violations continued until Moxie Auto Sales finally ceased operations in April 2022. This timeline is particularly significant because it demonstrates that legal authority alone cannot prevent determined fraudsters from continuing violations. The gap between court orders and actual compliance creates ongoing exposure for lenders.

More frequent auditing systems could have provided earlier alerts when vehicles were sold without corresponding trust account deposits, enabling faster intervention than court proceedings allow. Frequent, unannounced checks shorten how long a missing unit goes unseen.

The bankruptcy complication and recovery challenges

When Bunn filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in November 2022, the case entered another layer of complexity common in automotive finance fraud. NMAC filed an adversary proceeding alleging fraud, embezzlement, and wilful and malicious injury to prevent discharge of the debt under bankruptcy law.

This legal strategy aims to prevent Bunn from escaping personal liability through bankruptcy discharge. However, preventing discharge differs significantly from actual recovery of losses. Even successful adversary proceedings often result in uncollectible judgments when defendants lack sufficient assets.

The bankruptcy timeline also reveals the extended nature of fraud recovery processes. From initial default in 2021 to bankruptcy filing in 2022, NMAC faced nearly two years of legal proceedings with uncertain recovery prospects. During this period, the losses continued accumulating interest and legal costs.

What systematic trust violations mean for industry risk management

The Bunn case reveals important considerations for automotive finance risk management that extend beyond traditional credit assessment:

Concentrated control risk: Dealership ownership structures that concentrate control in single individuals require enhanced oversight regardless of the owner’s credit history or industry experience. Bunn had extensive automotive industry experience since 1986, yet this background didn’t prevent systematic trust violations.

Financial stress indicators: When dealerships begin experiencing difficulties, the risk of trust violations increases substantially, requiring more frequent oversight and enhanced validation rather than maintaining standard audit schedules.

The case also demonstrates that legal remedies, whilst important, cannot substitute for prevention through enhanced auditing. Court orders and contempt proceedings failed to stop ongoing violations, highlighting the need for systems that can detect and prevent trust violations through better funder visibility and more frequent verification.

Industry-wide adoption of enhanced auditing standards with increased frequency could significantly reduce the risk of systematic trust violations. When funders have better visibility into dealer activities through more frequent oversight, the ability to circumvent detection through timing manipulation is substantially reduced.

Lessons learned from the Moxie Auto Sales case

The Timothy Bunn case provides clear evidence that traditional automotive finance auditing frequency is insufficient against determined fraudsters who will continue violations even under legal pressure. The systematic nature of the trust violations, combined with their continuation despite court intervention, demonstrates fundamental limitations in standard periodic oversight approaches.

Enhanced auditing technology and increased frequency exist to reduce such violations. The cost of implementing more frequent and comprehensive auditing systems is minimal compared to the direct losses, legal costs, and recovery challenges that result from systematic trust violations. However, in the above case, it could be argued that NMAC’s own escalation and recovery process was too unresponsive to the clear systemic violations, and their losses are more a result of ineffective recovery management than just weak fraud detection.