Identity Theft

A person commits fraud when that person uses deceptive tactics or false premises in order to achieve a personal gain. Identity theft is a subcategory of fraud. Identity theft occurs when a person takes another person’s personal information in order to use it for his or her own personal gain. With the boom in technology usage, coupled with the billions of people in the world and constantly changing theft techniques, preventing identity theft is an enormous challenge. According to the Insurance Information Institute, Arizona has one of the highest rates of identity theft per 100,000 in population. Because of this extremely high rate as well as identity thieves constant technology innovation and ingenuity, state prosecutors and the judiciary have little choice but to use deterrence theory to curb the identity theft pandemic. This choice of deterrence theory results in punishing those charged with identity theft to the fullest extent under the law.

Identity Theft In Statute

In Arizona, identity theft is governed by A.R.S. § 13-2008, and has three main elements that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a guilty verdict can be secured. These elements are:

1. The person has knowingly taken, purchased, manufactured, recorded, possessed or used any personal identifying information of another person;
2. Without the consent of that person; and
3. With the intent to obtain, use, sell or transfer the other person's identity for any unlawful purpose, to obtain employment, or to cause loss to a person, regardless of whether the person actually suffered a loss.

The crux to any identity theft case is the State’s ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you acted knowingly and with intent for an unlawful purpose or to obtain employment. An effective defense is to raise doubt as to any of these elements, especially the element of intent. If you are unable to raise any doubt to the State’s evidence and you receive a conviction, the consequences may be fierce. A conviction under A.R.S. § 13-2008 results in a class 4 felony and carries a max 3 year sentence if you are a first time offender. To avoid these fierce consequences, it is important that you have an experienced attorney who can raise some doubt about the evidence presented against you.

Have I Committed Identity Theft By Impersonating Someone On Social Media?

A popular question often proposed during a conversation with our attorneys begins, “did I commit identity theft when I made a social media account of someone else?” The answer to that question, like most law related inquiries, is “it depends.” Presently, few states have statutes on their books that explicitly criminalize the impersonation of someone online. In 2013, Arizona legislators introduced a bill that proposed to criminalize the act of creating social media accounts under another person’s name. However, concerns over Frist Amendment rights and any potential chilling effect on speech quashed the effort. So as it stands currently, Arizona does not have a law specifically prohibiting someone from impersonating another person on social media. Yet, criminal liability for this sort of impersonation may not be completely off the table.

While people often impersonate others online for satirical purposes, Arizona law and prosecutors may not find your behavior as humorous. Depending on your specific impersonating actions and any resulting harm, criminal liability exposure is a serious and realistic threat. If you were to read the language in A.R.S. § 13-2008, you would likely realize it is excessively broad. Because of this broad language, judges may not struggle finding that your actions satisfied the elements of A.R.S. § 13-2008. A simple and far too common example of this occurs in high-schools throughout the state. Typically, in these cases a student will create an online profile on some social media platform impersonating a fellow classmate. The impersonator then would write disparaging or embarrassing remarks on the impersonated person’s or other classmates’ profiles. As to be expected, the victim is mortified and may even suffer emotional harm. With broad language governing Arizona’s identity theft statute, this impersonating example could be found to have satisfied all three of the elemental requirements of A.R.S. § 13-2008 discussed above.

To start, a judge assessing this example could easily find the first two elements fulfilled because the impersonator knowingly used the personal identifying information of a fellow classmate without his or her consent. Knowingly, in the identity theft context, means that the person was aware or believed he or she was using another person’s personal identifying information. Applying this definition to the high-school example, a judge could obviously find the impersonating person to have known they were using another classmate’s personal identifying information and without consent to do so. Where this example becomes interesting is in the third statutory element. Arizona’s identity theft statute is unique. Not only is it the oldest identity theft statute in the U.S., but its third element explicitly states that the victim does not have to actually suffer an economic loss. What this means is that while other jurisdictions may dismiss a case where the victim suffered no economic harm, Arizona judges may allow the case to continue. While the impersonated classmate might not have suffered an economic harm, they may still have suffered a loss. Thus, the sophomoric impersonator may find themselves staring at the same criminal liability as your sophisticated social security number identity thief.

Related Offenses

Because identity theft is just the taking of another person’s identity, you will likely face further charges for activity you may have conducted using the other person’s name. For example, if someone were to use false social security cards or numbers to obtain employment, that person would face an identity theft charge under A.R.S. § 13-2008, as well as potential charges of criminal impersonation and aggravated taking the identity of another person.

Criminal impersonation, under A.R.S. § 13-2006, occurs when someone:

• Assumes a false identity with the intent to defraud another; or
• Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization with the intent to defraud; or
• Pretends to be, or assuming a false identity of, an employee or representative of some person or organization with intent to induce another person to provide or allow access to property

If convicted of criminal impersonation, the person would receive a class 6 felony and a max sentence of 1 ½ years in prison as a first time offender./p>

Aggravated taking the identity of another person, under A.R.S. § 13-2009, is nearly the same as regular identity theft. The only difference being that aggravated taking the identity of another person occurs when you take the identity from three or more people. Additionally, this charge is a class 3 felony, which carries a potential max sentence of 7 years as a first time offender.

Let Us Help

Identity theft is a very serious felony offense that can carry a lot of jail time. Fighting an identity theft charge requires a team of highly experienced white-collar crime lawyers to ensure you receive the best results possible. Find one of Flagstaff Find A Lawyer’s criminal lawyers and their knowledge of identity theft criminal defense guide you through the process. The legal battle ahead will be led by strong representation and diligence.