Identity Theft Prosecutions In Federal Courts
š Legal Framework
Identity theft is prosecuted at the federal level primarily under the following statutes:
18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1028 ā Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents.
18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1028A ā Aggravated Identity Theft: mandatory 2-year sentence for using another personās identity in relation to certain felonies (e.g., bank fraud, wire fraud, immigration violations).
18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1343 ā Wire Fraud.
18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1344 ā Bank Fraud.
18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1961 et seq. ā RICO, when identity theft is part of organized criminal enterprise.
Federal prosecution focuses on identity theft connected to financial fraud, immigration fraud, tax fraud, cybercrime, and healthcare fraud.
āļø Notable Federal Cases
1. Flores-Figueroa v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009)
Facts:
A non-citizen worker used false Social Security and Alien Registration numbers to gain employment. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1028A (Aggravated Identity Theft).
Legal Issue:
Did the government need to prove that the defendant knew the ID belonged to a real person?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that actual knowledge is required under Ā§ 1028A.
The prosecution must show the defendant knew the ID belonged to a real individual, not a made-up identity.
Significance:
Set a high bar for proving aggravated identity theft, requiring intent and knowledge, not just use of false documents.
2. United States v. Mobley (4th Cir., 2010)
Facts:
Mobley stole personal information from tax files and used it to file fraudulent returns and collect refunds.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of anotherās identity to commit tax fraud sufficient for an aggravated identity theft conviction?
Decision:
Conviction under Ā§ 1028A was upheld.
Even though the theft occurred digitally, the link to a predicate felony (wire fraud/tax fraud) was enough.
Significance:
Confirmed that digital identity theft for tax refund schemes qualifies under aggravated identity theft law.
3. United States v. Abdelshafi (4th Cir., 2011)
Facts:
Defendant used stolen identities to bill Medicare fraudulently over $1 million.
Legal Issue:
Whether using false identities in healthcare fraud supports aggravated identity theft charges.
Decision:
The court upheld his conviction under Ā§ 1028A and Ā§ 1347 (healthcare fraud).
Identity use in medical billing was considered a felony offense trigger.
Significance:
Demonstrated broad use of Ā§ 1028A in white-collar healthcare fraud cases involving identity theft.
4. United States v. Doe (7th Cir., 2013)
Facts:
Defendant used stolen credit card information to make unauthorized purchases.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of a financial instrument with someone elseās identity enough for federal charges?
Decision:
Conviction under Ā§ 1028 and Ā§ 1029 (fraud related to access devices) was affirmed.
Court emphasized the connection between stolen data and interstate commerce to satisfy federal jurisdiction.
Significance:
Clarified that using stolen identity-linked access devices like credit cards meets the threshold for federal prosecution.
5. United States v. Osuna-Alvarez (9th Cir., 2012)
Facts:
An undocumented immigrant used someone elseās Social Security number to work and obtain benefits.
Legal Issue:
Does merely using someone else's SSN to work, without intent to defraud, violate Ā§ 1028A?
Decision:
The court held that use of real SSNs with intent to deceive for employment purposes can still lead to aggravated identity theft charges.
Significance:
Expanded interpretation of identity theft to immigration-related fraud, even if no financial gain was involved directly.
6. United States v. Fields (11th Cir., 2015)
Facts:
Fields led a large-scale identity theft ring targeting elderly victims and used their identities to file fraudulent tax returns.
Legal Issue:
Was Fields liable for multiple counts of aggravated identity theft per victim?
Decision:
Yes; each use of a stolen identity to commit fraud triggered a separate count under Ā§ 1028A.
Sentenced to multiple 2-year mandatory terms to be served consecutively.
Significance:
Highlighted the stacking effect of aggravated identity theft charges, increasing sentences for repeat use.
7. United States v. Barrington (11th Cir., 2010)
Facts:
A university employee accessed student records to steal SSNs and commit student aid fraud.
Legal Issue:
Did the unauthorized access and misuse of university systems for fraud support identity theft charges?
Decision:
Court upheld convictions under wire fraud, computer fraud, and identity theft statutes.
Digital access of private databases qualified as intent-driven identity theft.
Significance:
Confirmed that misuse of institutional access to data is a common basis for identity theft prosecutions.
š Summary of Legal Principles
| Legal Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Aggravated Identity Theft (Ā§ 1028A) | Requires knowing use of a real personās identity during the commission of a felony. |
| Predicate Offenses | Must be tied to crimes like wire fraud, tax fraud, healthcare fraud, etc. |
| Knowledge Requirement | Prosecution must prove the defendant knew the ID belonged to a real person. |
| Stacked Sentencing | Each use of a different identity can result in consecutive 2-year terms. |
| Digital & Access Device Fraud | Using stolen data from computers or financial accounts qualifies under federal law. |
| Immigration and Employment Fraud | Using someone elseās ID to obtain work or benefits can trigger charges. |
š§¾ Conclusion
Federal identity theft prosecutions are aggressive, especially when paired with financial crimes or fraud. The key statutory weaponā18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1028Aāimposes mandatory prison time when someone knowingly uses another personās identity during a felony. Courts focus heavily on the knowledge element, and prosecutors often bring multiple charges when numerous identities are involved.
RELATED Blog
0 comments