Identity Theft Case

July 8, 2015 on justice.gov, Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney and Tamera Fine, Identity Fraud Coordinator for the District of Maryland, writes in their article entitled “Identity Theft: Coordination Can Defeat the Modern-Day “King” and “Duke”; that the scope of identity theft is it is “twice as prevalent among the wealthiest households when compared with the poorest, and over fifty percent more likely among the young (those between the ages of 16 and 24) than seniors (aged 65 or above).” Their conclusions were the fact that “approximately half of identity theft victims had existing credit card accounts or other financial accounts compromised.” Also, that in these cases most victims were compensated but the “financial institution” suffered the lost.
They
determined that, new accounts were likely to be suspected, because the victim “… (Would) be more likely to report a significant emotional or other non-financial impact from the unauthorized use of their identities.”
They also stated that it “over fifty percent more likely among the young (those between 16 and 24) than seniors (aged 65 or above).”
This would lead me to conclude that the young between the ages 16 and 24, would be less likely to suspect as well because it is not unusual for these youth to obtain a credit card. While seniors, aged 65 and older would draw suspicion. (justice.gov)

Describe the consequences to individuals.
Also in their article they point out the “harm caused by Identity theft.” They list such consequences as the harm to all “socioeconomic groups.” The fact that it targets individuals as well as “financial institutions.” They state that it “places victims at higher risk for re-victimization if their identity information is recycled by identity thieves.” Therefore once you become a victim, it is likely that you will be re-victimized. Once a criminal has your personal information, it is likely that they will continue using it.
They point out that identity victims “often suffer significant aggravation and financial losses.” They believe that the fact that “modern commerce is depersonalized” leaving victims to suffer “lasting harm” after their information is compromised. They believe that some aren’t able to receive future credit or may have employment problems.
They also point out the loses to “large financial loses on financial institutions, government agencies, and countless large and small businesses that are defrauded, directing you to the Bureau of Justice Statistics where they estimate that this financial loses was “$17.3 billion in 2007 and
2008.”
The article states that, “much of this cost is passed on to consumers through higher prices for goods and services.” This hurts the consumer worse than it hurts companies. Because, companies lay the cost at the consumers door.
In their article they also point out that “some criminals engage in identity theft not just for financial gain,” but with other “criminal objectives” in mind. They point out objectives like “evading law enforcement or immigration officials, or obtaining medical care using another’s identity for insurance or payment purposes.”
The harms they list range between “erroneous arrests,” “the loss of state and federal benefits when a victim’s identity is used for employment purposes,” even the loss of “clearing and monitoring their credit reports.”
The harm to the victim of identity theft, is beyond repair. Obviously the victim will suffer financial loses, but the real harm is not knowing who might be using your identity or when. (justice.gov)