United States v. Kowal

United States v. Kowal527 F.3d 741In america Courtroom of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitCase Quantity 07-3353Before Circuit Choose Murphy, Circuit Choose Colloton, and Circuit Choose ShepherdDecided on Could 29, 2008

Relevancy of the Case: Can utilizing a deceased particular person’s identification be thought-about identification theft?

Statutes and Provisions Concerned

In 1988, the prosecution charged the defendant with a number of counts of theft and forgery associated to embezzlement of funds from his employer.
Whereas dealing with pending prices, he assumed the brand new identification of Larry Tipton, who died in December 1944. Utilising his start certificates, he acquired a driver’s license and social safety quantity in Arizona. Moreover, he utilized for a password, which the authorities denied.
He confronted a federal indictment for making a false assertion regarding his passport utility. He subsequently fled Arizona for California to flee prosecution. Later, the Arizona authorities dismissed his prices in 2001.
Upon relocating to California, he adopted the identification of William C. Bloom and obtained a California state ID card.
After returning to Arizona, he resumed dwelling beneath the identification of Larry Tipton and bought married. He utilized for a wedding license utilizing his social safety quantity and tried to vary his identify to Michael William Tipton. Furthermore, he obtained an Iowa driver’s license and an actual property license.
The defendant confronted prices for knowingly and falsely representing his identify, social safety quantity, and date of start. Upon studying of his previous, his spouse filed for annulment.
He acquired 17 bank cards from 14 corporations beneath the Tipton and Bloom identities all through this era.

Outstanding Arguments by the Counsels

The defendant’s counsel argued that the theft of identification doesn’t embrace the identification of a deceased particular person. He contended that the District Courtroom misapplied the quantity of loss and asserted that he supposed to pay the bank card balances. He didn’t intend to acquire them with the intent to defraud.

Opinion of the Bench

The federal government should show that the defendant knowingly used the technique of identification of one other particular person for a profitable conviction.
The time period “particular person” just isn’t ambiguous within the statute. The defendant’s intention to pay the balances is irrelevant. In response to the issuers, coping with totally different people suggests an intention to defraud.
The courtroom helps the District Courtroom’s upward departure. The courtroom additional famous the defendant’s intention to acquire a number of identities to keep away from legal prosecution in Arizona and California.

Ultimate Choice

The courtroom upheld the District Courtroom’s judgment.

Yagyanseni Acharya, an undergraduate pupil at VIT College of Regulation, Chennai, ready this case abstract throughout her internship with The Cyber Weblog India in January/February 2024.