Facts: Victim's identity is stolen by unknown party. Several credit accounts opened in victim's name, as reflected on credit report. Months after intial crime is reported a subject is found in another county, in possession of a credit card that was fraudulently issued in the victim's maiden name. (Card had been used earlier that day, but there is insufficient evidence to link the subject with that transaction.) Is this fraudulent possession of identifying information under PC � 32.51? The credit card does not seem to meet the definition of identifying information under 32.51(a)(1). So is possession of the victim's maiden name, without consent, sufficient to charge the crime?

"Identifying information" means information that alone or in conjunction with other information identifies a person, including a person's:
(A) name and social security number, date of birth, or government-issued identification number.

The fact that a credit card was issued based on the information possessed is persuasive that the crime occurred and can be charged as such: the information possessed, the maiden name, in conjunction with other info provided to the credit card company that permitted the issuance of the fraudulent card.

Why not charge credit card abuse under PC 32.21 (b)(8)?

Good idea, but that has two problems, as I see it: Is my victim really the cardholder when she didn't even know that the card had been issued? I don't know. I just think it's a question worth asking. More importantly, I think 32.31 puts venue in the county where the suspect was found in possession of the card - not where the victim lives (my county). And experience tells me that if I kick the case back to the police, to be filed in the other county, the other county (which shall remain nameless) is not going to pursue the charge.