Case Studies On Identity Theft Prosecutions
1. United States v. Abdirahman Sheik Mohamed (2018)
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Statutes Involved: 18 U.S.C. §1028A (Aggravated Identity Theft), 18 U.S.C. §1343 (Wire Fraud)
Facts
Mohamed ran a scheme using stolen Social Security numbers to file fraudulent tax returns. The IRS flagged hundreds of returns linked to him. He had obtained personal information of real individuals—many elderly—through illicit data brokers. The refunds were routed to prepaid debit cards under his control.
Issue
Whether using real individuals’ Social Security numbers knowingly and unlawfully to file fraudulent returns constitutes aggravated identity theft under §1028A.
Decision
Mohamed was convicted of aggravated identity theft and wire fraud. The court held that using another person’s identifying number without lawful authority, even if the victim was unaware, met the statutory requirement.
Significance
This case underscored the federal government’s increased focus on tax-refund identity theft and clarified that actual knowledge that the identity belonged to a real person was sufficient for conviction.
2. United States v. Alvarez (United States v. Giovanni Alvarez) – 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Statute: 18 U.S.C. §1028A
Facts
Alvarez used stolen patient identities from a medical clinic to fraudulently obtain credit and open bank accounts. He argued he did not know the identities were tied to “real persons.”
Issue
Did the prosecution need to prove the defendant knew the personal identifiers belonged to real individuals?
Decision
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and held that proof of actual knowledge was necessary but could be inferred from circumstantial evidence—such as the sophistication of the scheme, number of victims, and nature of records stolen.
Significance
The decision clarified evidentiary standards for proving knowledge in aggravated identity theft cases.
3. United States v. Flores-Figueroa (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Statute: 18 U.S.C. §1028A
Facts
Flores-Figueroa, an undocumented worker, used fake identification documents containing real Social Security and Alien Registration numbers to secure employment. He claimed he did not know the numbers belonged to real people.
Issue
Does §1028A require the government to prove the defendant knew the identity belonged to an actual person?
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that knowledge is required, because the wording “knowingly uses… a means of identification of another person” demands it.
Significance
This is a landmark identity-theft case. It changed the way prosecutors approached identity-theft crimes, requiring them to demonstrate actual knowledge—a higher burden of proof.
4. United States v. Adeyemi (2017)
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
Statutes: 18 U.S.C. §1028A; 18 U.S.C. §1349 (Conspiracy to Commit Fraud)
Facts
Adeyemi operated a multi-state IRS tax-refund fraud ring, obtaining stolen identities of soldiers deployed overseas. He used these identities to file false returns, generating millions in fraudulent refunds.
Issue
Whether conspiracy coupled with identity misuse warranted enhanced penalties under §1028A’s mandatory two-year consecutive sentences.
Decision
The court imposed consecutive terms for each count of aggravated identity theft. It emphasized that identity theft tied to national-security-sensitive victims (like military personnel) warranted strict sentencing.
Significance
This case showed how courts apply stacked sentencing for multiple identity-theft counts, dramatically increasing punishment.
5. United States v. Kyllo (2016)
Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Statutes: 18 U.S.C. §1028; 18 U.S.C. §1029 (Access Device Fraud)
Facts
Kyllo obtained credit card information by skimming devices placed on gas pumps. The stolen credit card information was used to duplicate cards and withdraw cash from ATMs.
Issue
Was possession of multiple stolen card numbers, along with devices used for skimming, enough to prove intent to defraud?
Decision
The court ruled that the combination of tools, data, and conduct demonstrated clear criminal intent, securing convictions on identity-theft and access-device-fraud charges.
Significance
The case strengthened precedent that possessing identity-theft tools—like skimmers—along with stolen data is sufficient to demonstrate fraudulent intent.
6. United States v. Scott Levine (2005, Pre-§1028A but foundational)
Court: U.S. District Court, Arkansas
Statutes: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030), wire fraud
Facts
Levine hacked into a data-aggregation company (Acxiom Corporation) and stole millions of personal records—names, SSNs, and birthdates. He sold them to marketing firms and identity-theft groups.
Issue
Could large-scale data breaches be prosecuted as identity theft even before specific identity-theft statutes were expanded?
Decision
Levine was convicted under CFAA and wire-fraud statutes. Though §1028A did not yet exist, the case shaped how prosecutors later justified identity-theft charges tied to data breaches.
Significance
It demonstrated that data breaches are a major vehicle for identity theft, laying groundwork for later statutory reforms and prosecutions.
7. The Ajay “Whizkid” Seth Case (India – 2004)
Court: Delhi High Court (India)
Statutes: Indian Penal Code; Information Technology Act, 2000
Facts
Ajay Seth hacked into U.S. financial institutions, stealing American credit card numbers and selling them on the underground market. Although operating from India, his crime involved transnational identity theft and credit-card fraud.
Issue
How should courts treat identity theft involving digital crimes that cross national borders?
Decision
Seth was convicted under Indian cybercrime and fraud laws. The court emphasized that identity theft is not geographically limited and upheld extraterritorial application of cybercrime statutes.
Significance
This case became an early example of international cooperation in identity-theft investigations and influenced India’s later cyber-law amendments.
Summary Table of Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Case | Key Principle | Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Mohamed | Using stolen SSNs for tax fraud constitutes aggravated identity theft | Expanded prosecution of tax-refund fraud |
| Alvarez | Knowledge that identity belongs to a real person can be shown circumstantially | Lowered evidentiary burden (after Flores-Figueroa) |
| Flores-Figueroa | Government must prove actual knowledge of “real person” status | Landmark Supreme Court interpretation |
| Adeyemi | Consecutive sentencing for multiple identity-theft counts | Created strong deterrent effect |
| Kyllo | Skimming devices + stolen card numbers = intent to defraud | Important for credit-card-fraud prosecutions |
| Levine | Data breaches constitute identity-theft-related offenses | Pioneered data-breach prosecution strategies |
| Seth (India) | Identity theft is borderless; extraterritorial cybercrime enforcement allowed | Strengthened global cyber-law enforcement |
RELATED Blog
comments