Theft of identity takes place when a person uses the personal identification information belonging to another person. In this case, the personal identification information could involve the name of a person, credit card number, national identification number, or any other user identification information that may be acquired without the permission of the owner and used in committing fraud among other criminal offenses. If a person is involved in the stealing of the identity belonging to a different person but does not cause any monetary damage, the crime has still been committed. This is because the criminal offense in law is usually not determined by the monetary damage caused by stealing of one's identity. Instead, the criminal offense is determined based on the facts that the offender illegally acquires the personal information belonging to the victim before using it to commit illegal activities. For example, the offender who steals personal information from a victim may use that information by providing it to law enforcement entities instead of providing his or her personal information to avoid sanctions and criminal convictions (Kirk, 2014).
Laws on identity theft have been subjected to some changer over the last couple of years because identity theft has always led to the generation of several complaints launched at the Federal Trade Commission. In the year 2013, thirty-seven states in the United States including the state of California came up with legislation concerning the issue of identity theft. In California state, the previously existing laws were able to lead to the establishment of the offenses that were involving forgery, falsification of documents, mortgage fraud, grand theft, and identity theft among others. Such laws require expects a court of law to make orders in such a manner that the convicted defendants would be required to make payments of restitution fines as well as payments of restitution to their victims. This payment should always be applicable unless the court finds more extraordinary and compelling reasons for not imposing such fines. Where a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense involving the theft of identity or any other forgery or falsification of personal information, the law allows any person who claims to have an interest in the affected identity or property to file a specific claim in connection with the offense (Trost, 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Over the last couple of years, there have been legislative efforts towards the creation of a balance between the federal laws of identity theft on one side and the competing needs of the government agencies and victims on the other side. Before the year 1998, criminal offenses that would be related or amount to the what is presently termed as identity theft were being addressed under the statutes of false personation which dates back to the beginning of the nineteenth century. In this respect, the law protecting a victim against false personation addressed the criminal offenses associated with the false assumption of the identity of another person with the objective of avoiding an expense or gaining certain benefits. With time, the legislative bodies at the level of the state government also adopted and passed several laws that facilitated the prosecution of crimes of identity theft at a state level. Also, several other laws have since been enacted with the objective of handling some of the complexities arising from the crimes of identity fraud and theft. These laws include the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2004 which plays a crucial role in the establishment of the appropriate penalties for the aggravated theft of identity. The theft of identity involves knowingly assuming another person's identity to break the law including violation of immigration regulations, acts of domestic terrorism, and theft of social security benefits belonging to another person (Kirk, 2014).
The other law is that of Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 which sought to bring about clarities regarding the restitution orders issued about cases of identity theft that may involve an amount that is considered equal to the time value spent by the victim in remediating the intended or actual harm. Even though the theft of identity is usually considered as a criminal offense in nearly every state and as a federal felony, is highly required to have in place some mechanisms that will amend the law of theft of identity. This law ought to be subject to further amendments so that it allows for adequate prevention, detection, and prosecution of criminal records associated with identity theft. In California state, the law on theft of identity allows for the prosecution of the associated offenses as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the criminal history of the defendant as well as the facts that are specific to the case being prosecuted (Trost, 2017).
Moreover, the state of California, through its laws on the theft of identity, prohibits the unauthorized use of another person's personal information with the intention of achieving an unlawful purpose. In this respect, a prosecutor is expected to be in a position to demonstrate that the defendant was involved in a willful acquisition of another person's personal identification information without the consent of the owner and used it unlawfully. The theft of identity laws in the state of California also makes it a criminal offense for one to transfer or sell the identification information belonging to another person. Some of the defenses to the charges associated with the California identity theft include the consent provided by the owner of the identification information as well as the fact that the personal information acquired is not used unlawfully. Some of the important elements of the identity theft laws that have been legislated and used by the state of California include sentences and penalties. In this regard, the state of California focuses on imposing similar sentences and penalties for various criminal offenses associated with identity theft irrespective of whether the defendant unlawfully used, transferred, sold, retained, or acquired personal identification information belonging to another person (Perl, 2003).
The actual penalty or sentence is often determined by the nature of the circumstances surrounding the criminal offense and the extent of the damage caused to the victim of identity theft. The penalty may be established through imprisonment to serve a jail term of up to twelve months in county jail, a fine, both jail-term and a fine, or a more severe sentence depending on prior the criminal record held by the defendant as well as other circumstances authorized in law. The official listing of identity theft as one of the federal criminal offenses took place in the year 1998 when the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 was passed after a series of deliberations by the Congress. To that extent, this act ensured the strengthening of all the other criminal laws that were related to the theft of identity in one way or the other. Specifically, the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 led to the amendment of section 1028 of the 18 United States codes on fraudulent activities related to official documents of identification. Upon the coming to effect of this amendment, it became a federal crime for one to deliberately use or transfer the personal information of another person without any lawful authorization. Such an act would constitute unlawful activities that violate the federal laws (Poster, 2007).
References
Kirk, D. (2014). Identifying Identity Theft. The Journal of Criminal Law , 78(6), 448-450.
Perl, M. (2003). It's Not Always about the Money: Why the State Identity Theft Laws Fail to Adequately Address Criminal Record Identity Theft. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) , 94(1), p.169.
Poster, M. (2007). The secret self. Cultural Studies , 21(1), 118-140.
Trost, J. (2017). The Impostor Rule and Identity Theft in America. Law and History Review , 35(02), 433-459.
