US v. Robert Jardin, et al.

This page lists current CPB case updates accessible to the public.

Note: Under the "Justice for All Act of 2004," crime victims have certain rights described here.




US v. Robert Jardin, et al.


Odometer Tampering Case: CLOSED CASES 11/22/05

Most Recent Update: 3/05 (See end of document)

United States v. Robert Jardin, Bruce Jardine, and Dennis Jardine,
Crim. No. 04-219 (E.D. Pennsylvania); United States v. Dean Jardine,
Crim. No. 04-080 (E.D. Pennsylvania)

Update 12/04:

Earlier this year, the United States Department of Justice and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Odometer Fraud
Task Force concluded an investigation in New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Pennsylvania involving the sale of used motor vehicles with altered
odometers. The investigation originated in Connecticut, when inspectors
with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles, acting on information
received from the Southington Police Department, developed evidence
of a large-scale odometer rollback scheme. The investigation disclosed
that numerous vehicles had been subject to odometer tampering.

The Federal odometer law, Title 49, United States Code, sections 32701-32711
(formerly the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Title
15, United States Code, sections 1981-1991) prohibits disconnecting,
resetting, or altering a motor vehicle's odometer with intent to change
the number of miles on the odometer. The law requires that a written
disclosure of the mileage registered on an odometer be provided by the
seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred.
If the odometer mileage is incorrect, the Act requires a statement to
that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer.

As a result of the investigation, on September 9, 2004, a Philadelphia
grand jury indicted Bruce Jardine, Robert Jardine, and Dennis Jardine,
all of New Jersey, on various counts related to the odometer fraud scheme.
The indictment alleged that the brothers purchased high miles vehicles,
rolled back the odometers, and sold them at Manheim Auto Auction in
Manheim, Pennsylvania under the names Bridgewater Rental & Leasing and
Whitehouse Rental & Leasing.

On December 6, 2004, the three brothers pled guilty to several counts
of the Indictment before Judge Schiller in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The brothers admitted that they had
sold rolled-back vehicles at the auction while representing that the
false mileage readings were true. A fourth Jardine brother involved
in the scheme, Dean Jardine, had previously pled guilty before Judge

The court set a March 11, 2005 sentencing date for Bruce, Robert, and
Dennis Jardine. Sentencing for Dean Jardine has not yet been scheduled.

If you believe that you are a victim of odometer fraud, please refer
to the following document: Odometer
Fraud – Civil Remedies for Victims

Update 1/3/05:

Sentencing for Dean Jardine (United States v. Dean Jardine, Crim. No.
04-080) has been set for 2 p.m. on January 25, 2005. The sentencing
will be before Judge R. Barclay Surrick at the United States Courthouse,
601 Market Street, Philadelphia.

Update 1/26/05:

On January 25, 2005, the Court sentenced Dean Jardine to 4 months'
imprisonment and an additional 6 months' home confinement. Jardine also
was ordered to pay $60,000 in victim restitution at a rate of $300 per

Update 3/11/05:

On March 11, 2005, the Court sentenced Bruce, Robert, and Dennis Jardine.
Bruce Jardine was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and 3 years of
supervised release. He also was ordered to pay $608,000 in victim restitution
and a $36,000 fine, at a total rate of $500 per month. Robert Jardine
was sentenced to 19 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release.
He was ordered to pay $280,000 in restitution and a $28,000 fine, also
at a rate of $500 per month. Dennis Jardine was sentenced to 12 months'
imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. He was ordered to pay
$156,000 restitution at $500 per month. Each of the defendants must
also perform 100 hours of community service.

Under federal law, restitution is ordered without regard to the defendant's
ability to pay such restitution. While the court ordered that a lump
sum be paid in the near future, the court also imposed the schedule
described above, with payments to begin after the defendant in question
serves his time in prison. The probation office of the court will be
administering the restitution order.

Consumer Protection