Identity Theft And Assumption Deterrence Act Of 1998

Created by Laura Biber on March 11, 2016 1042

The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (ITADA) of 1998 made identity theft a federal crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The ITADA also established the FTC as the focal point for all consumer complaints related to identity theft.  Finally, the ITADA closed previously existing legal loopholes that made it a crime to produce or possess another person's legal documents, but not to steal them. 

The ITADA made it a federal crime to: "knowingly transfer or use, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law."

Congress has since passed the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2004 and the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 to address "aggravated" identity theft and establish federal jurisdiction of identity theft cases even when the parties are from the same state. 

Written by Laura Biber on April 24, 2016 0 1419
View all explanation (1)

Supporting Authority

U.S. v. Fuller, 531 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2008)
Link to Supporting Resource

In the case, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 requiring that a defendant knowingly possess and identification document that "is or appears to be an identification document" issued by the government does not require that the government must prove that the ID was issued by a real agency of the United States. The court held that it is enough that the document appear to be issued under the authority of the United States.

Created by Laura Biber on March 31, 2016 0 1497

United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2011)
Link to Supporting Resource

In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction of producing a false identification document that appeared to be issued by or under the authority of the United States government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028. Among the arguments raised on the appeal was that the defendant did not “produce” the ID (he ordered it online). The court held that the defendant was involved in the physical assembly (and therefore production) of the ID because he had to sign and laminate the ID upon receipt. The court suggests he defendant would have produced the ID even if it arrived in the mail laminated. The court cites United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 165 (4th Cir.2003) for the premise that “[w]hether or not [defendant] physically produced the false documents himself is irrelevant to his conviction.”

Created by Laura Biber on April 24, 2016 0 1484

STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS (1) SHOW ALL ADD STATUTES

Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and Information (18 U.S.C. § 1028)
Link to Supporting Resource

Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 is codified in this statute. It includes the both the prohibited conduct and the punishment for violations of the act.

Created by Laura Biber on March 27, 2016 0 1486
Balancing Proportionality And Deterrence: The First Circuit's Definition Of “Victims” Of Identity Theft In United States V. Stepanian
Link to Supporting Resource

This article traces the history of identity theft legislation, beginning with the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. This article also includes a discussion of the Identity Theft Enhancement Act of 2004 (discussed in the next sub-section in this section). The article then discusses the definition of "victim" as defined in the dentity Theft Enhancement Act of 2004, reviewing the opinion from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that held that bank account holders who were reimbursed for their losses were "victims" under identity theft statutes.  

Created by Laura Biber on April 24, 2016 0 1488

Identity Theft: Trends and Issues
Link to Supporting Resource

This Congressional Research Service article discusses current trends with regard to identity theft. The article also contains an overview of the three identity theft pieces of legislation discussed in this section: The Identity Theft and Deterrence Act of 1998, the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2004, and the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008.

Created by Laura Biber on April 23, 2016 0 1496