Seyed Rabi was the victim of identity theft. A pair of criminals hacked into his computer and acquired all of his personal and financial information. By forging Seyed's signature on a land transfer document, they were able to transfer title to his house into their own names. They then went to a bank, borrowed $500 000, and gave a mortgage over the property as security for the loan. Of course, after receiving the cash, they disappeared, rather than repay the loan. Since it had not been repaid, the bank began legal proceedings against the property. Seyed was entirely unaware of the fraud until the bank's lawyer and real estate agent showed up at his front door and insisted that the house was theirs for the taking. Seyed says that that is ridiculous. Since he had neither transferred title to the rogues, nor done anything wrong, he insists that he is not responsible for the bank's problems. The bank, in contrast, explains that it honestly believed that the mortgage was valid and insists that, since the property is located in a Torrens system, it has acquired indefeasible title. It has threatened Seyed that he will lose the property unless he repays the loan that gave rise to the mortgage that is registered against title. Which party is likely to win? Explain your answer.