I came across an interesting problem today. According to the Penal Code, a person who uses only another's name and nothing else does not commit the offense of Identify theft. Is that correct? I read the statute to require a name plus a SSN, DL#, or date of birth under the definition of "Identifying Information" in 32.51(a)(1)(A).
Does anyone have any thoughts otherwise?
ADA Hunt County
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."
Perhaps the legislature should have had your riddle in mind Shannon when they drafted the Statute?
Do you have a case involving names and nothing more? Shakespeare's opinion nothwithstanding, it would seem difficult to harm/defraud another armed with nothing but that person's name.
Well, a woman used a customer's name to open a PayPal billing account. The defendant spent some money online and had the bills sent to her work. The defendant claims she did it because her husband did not want her to spend any more money on the kids for Christmas. She felt bad for them so she opened this new account and planned on paying the bill from work so her husband would never see the bill.
Unfortunately for her, the boss opened the bill first and she got caught. I guess you could say that she was trying to defraud her husband, but I still can't see that she qualifies under the statute by using only the customer's name. I mean, lots of people have the same name, so it is hard to argue that a name alone is "identifying information."
The kicker is, the defendant has been to prison before for theft, so this is not a "dumb mistake."
|Powered by Social Strata|
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.