Those fleets might be in San Bernadino California, and he might some of the cars to a used car lot in Dallas, Kansas City, etc.
Because of his car dealership license, he was required to personally inspect any car he would take title to. Obviously, personally inspecting autos in California is price prohibitive so this guy would hire a "bird dog" to inspect the cars for him.
I once asked him if he was worried about being busted for this practice and he told me "Gordon, there isn't one dealer in the state that isn't in violation of at least three laws related to their license, the key is not to piss off anyone connected to the state because they will drop the hammer on you in a heart beat because they already know that no one is in 100% compliance".
If you don't believe me, read this and tell me this isn't true for just about every business in this country.............
Prosecutors who are looking for an easy “win” know that businesses roll over. A public raid on its offices, or an indictment of its officers, can destroy a business’s reputation and viability. That makes the owners easy to intimidate into a plea bargain.
If they choose to fight, they face the full wrath and fury of the feds. In the Gibson raids, the SWAT teams were deployed even though Gibson had offered its full cooperation to investigators. Such raids are increasingly used to intimidate citizens under suspicion. The orchid importer, a 65-year-old with Parkinson’s, was shoved against a wall by armed officers in flak jackets, frisked, and forced into a chair without explanation while his home was searched.The government also attempts to get low-level employees to “finger” their bosses. For example, the feds threatened Gibson employees with long prison sentences. This is not a search for truth, but an immoral attempt at extortion to win convictions. Investigators examine the lives of “little fish” and use minor, unrelated violations (smoking a joint, or exaggerating income on a loan application) to pressure them to back the government’s case against their employers. Mobsters have experience with threats like this, but a secretary or an accountant is scared to death by the threat of prosecution.
A favorite ploy of prosecutors in these cases is to charge defendants with false statements based on their answers to the investigators. The sentence for this can be five years in prison. No recording is made of the interviews — in fact, the feds prohibit taping the interviews — and the agents are not stenographers. They cannot possibly recall the exact wording of the questions and the answers. Yet after the interview, they will produce a “transcript” replete with quotes throughout. And if a witness says he did not actually say what the agent put in quotes, it is the witness’s word against a fine, upstanding federal agent’s. Staring at a five-year sentence will get most people to say whatever the government wants them to.
Now tell me again how easy it is to run a business in the US?