U.S. government loses immigrant identity-theft case

[Niels Bohr 72]

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An illegal immigrant who uses false identification papers must know they belonged to another person to be convicted of identity theft, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The high court's unanimous ruling was a victory for Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican illegal immigrant who used false identification to get a job at a steel plant in Illinois.

He was convicted of aggravated identify theft, a law adopted in 2004 that carries a mandatory two-year prison term. The law has been increasingly used by the federal government to charge some of those arrested in raids at work sites that employ illegal immigrants.

In the high court's opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the law required that prosecutors show that the defendant knew the counterfeit identification belonged to another person.

The ruling, a defeat for the U.S. Justice Department, resolved conflicting appeals court decisions on the issue, and limits prosecutors' ability to pile identify charges on to illegal immigration cases.

Defense lawyers had argued their clients should not be charged with identity theft. They sought the documentation only to allow them to work and did not know if the numbers were fictitious or had actually belonged to someone else.

The ruling is not expected to affect prosecutions of non-immigration identity-theft cases. Defendants who steal Social Security number for financial gain know they are victimizing a real person.

The ruling comes at a time when President Barack Obama is reviewing how to crack down on illegal immigration.

Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen employed at the steel plant since 2000, initially worked under an assumed name and false Social Security and immigration registration numbers.

In 2006, he told his employer he wanted to be known by his real name and submitted new identification documents.

But it turned out the new set of numbers belonged to other people and the suspicious employer contacted immigration authorities, who arrested Flores-Figueroa.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of immigration documents and one count of illegally entering the United States, resulting in a 51-month sentence. He faced deportation after serving his term.

After trial, he then was convicted on two counts of aggravated identity theft, which added two years to his sentence. That part of his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

(Editing by Deborah Charles and Alan Elsner)

[Otto 83]

How could he not know? (I suspect he did, but the state just coulnd't prove it.)

[fozzie 41]

I thought ignorance was no defense??????

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought ignorance was no defense??????

That's what I thought. Henceforth, identiy thieves will claim that they had no knowledge that the identy they used didn't belong to another person. Awesome. And robbers may claim that they didn't know that the goods they stole weren't their in the first place. Way to go!

[^KK^ 3]

Man it's really raining outside today.

[AlHayatZween 2]

i hate everything...

i'm quitting doing everything right as of right now...

[The_Dude 1,142]

I thought ignorance was no defense??????

That's what I thought. Henceforth, identiy thieves will claim that they had no knowledge that the identy they used didn't belong to another person. Awesome. And robbers may claim that they didn't know that the goods they stole weren't their in the first place. Way to go!

There is a distinction between those who commit the identity theft, and those who enable them. The key component is mens rea. If the person who bought the documents was informed of the history of the documents, then he was in fact guilty of identity theft as well as the person who actually commited the initial crime. If he didn't, then he is not guilty of identity theft, but has committed another crime and should be prosecuted for that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought ignorance was no defense??????

That's what I thought. Henceforth, identiy thieves will claim that they had no knowledge that the identy they used didn't belong to another person. Awesome. And robbers may claim that they didn't know that the goods they stole weren't their in the first place. Way to go!

There is a distinction between those who commit the identity theft, and those who enable them. The key component is mens rea. If the person who bought the documents was informed of the history of the documents, then he was in fact guilty of identity theft as well as the person who actually commited the initial crime. If he didn't, then he is not guilty of identity theft, but has committed another crime and should be prosecuted for that.

I don't see it that way. The acquired identity obviously wasn't that of the acquiring party. The acquiring party cannot reasonably claim not to know that. If the identity isn't that of the person that acquires it, it follows that there's a good chance that it belongs to someone else. To claim ignorance of this simple fact is dishonest at best and for the court to honor that - at least - dishonest claim is quite outrageous.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

oh f'ing wonderful.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I thought ignorance was no defense??????

That's what I thought. Henceforth, identiy thieves will claim that they had no knowledge that the identy they used didn't belong to another person. Awesome. And robbers may claim that they didn't know that the goods they stole weren't their in the first place. Way to go!

There is a distinction between those who commit the identity theft, and those who enable them. The key component is mens rea. If the person who bought the documents was informed of the history of the documents, then he was in fact guilty of identity theft as well as the person who actually commited the initial crime. If he didn't, then he is not guilty of identity theft, but has committed another crime and should be prosecuted for that.

I don't see it that way. The acquired identity obviously wasn't that of the acquiring party. The acquiring party cannot reasonably claim not to know that. If the identity isn't that of the person that acquires it, it follows that there's a good chance that it belongs to someone else. To claim ignorance of this simple fact is dishonest at best and for the court to honor that - at least - dishonest claim is quite outrageous.

But the fact remains, mens rea is central to the commission of a crime. The man is guilty of fraud on many levels, but not identity theft.

[SMOKE 1,426]

is that name on your id you? no. then you know its id theft.

[The_Dude 1,142]

is that name on your id you? no. then you know its id theft.

And if only laws read like that, but they don't, and each one has a burden of proof. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it's not right and that it makes common sense that it is identity theft. But legally speaking, and in this case, that is all that matters, it isn't.

[AlHayatZween 2]

[SMOKE 1,426]

is that name on your id you? no. then you know its id theft.

And if only laws read like that, but they don't, and each one has a burden of proof. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it's not right and that it makes common sense that it is identity theft. But legally speaking, and in this case, that is all that matters, it isn't.

yes, but i'm hoping he catches a new case while he is serving his 51 months.

[lucyrich 20]

The acquired identity obviously wasn't that of the acquiring party. The acquiring party cannot reasonably claim not to know that. If the identity isn't that of the person that acquires it, it follows that there's a good chance that it belongs to someone else. To claim ignorance of this simple fact is dishonest at best and for the court to honor that - at least - dishonest claim is quite outrageous.

It's true that the SSN didn't belong to the person who acquired it. But it doesn't follow that it belonged to someone else. And it really doesn't follow that an illegal immigrant knew it belonged to someone else.

In the workplace raids that started this case, the immigrants who had made-up SSNs were quickly divided into two groups: Those whose random made-up SSNs happened to match a real person's, and those whose made-up SSNs had never been issued to anyone. The former group got a mandatory 2 year prison sentence, which the latter group didn't get. Both groups had done the same thing, using made-up false SSNs, but the punishment varied widely depending on whether their number happened to match. Two people could have bought their false documents from the same forger, the same day, one after the other, but one gets two years prison which the other doesn't, just because the forger happened to pick a number that matched in one of the cases and not the other. That's what the court objected to.

If you want to argue that the penalty for using a random made-up SSN should be more severe, you may have a very good point. But the identity theft law that was used to prosecute them in this case required that they know not only that the number was fake, but they also had to know that the number actually belonged to someone else.