s the problem of identity theft continues to grow, legislators at both the state and federal levels are taking steps to help protect the rights of individual identity theft victims. In the past, banks rather than individuals were considered the "victims" of credit fraud, because individual are only liable for $50 of fraudulent charges in most circumstances. However, as the scope and complexity of credit and identity fraud have grown, government representatives have begun to recognize a need for legal protection for the people whose credit reports and "good names" may be damaged for years by the work of an identity thief.
		t may come as a surprise to many to know that in most states there is no legal definition of identity theft as a crime. Although many of the elements of an identity theft are criminal acts (such as credit or Social Security fraud), the act of obtaining and using personal information to impersonate another individual has not been a public offense (a crime prosecutable in criminal court). But in October of last year, California's governor signed the first state legislation in the country to define identity theft as a public offense. The bill includes several provisions that offer California residents important protection against this crime.
				People applying for credit in person must show three pieces of identification, including at least one photo ID.
				Card issuers may not send a card issued in response to a direct mail solicitation to any address other than the address the offer was sent to, unless the change of address has been verified by contacting the person to whom the card has been issued.
				Credit bureaus must remove a disputed item from the victim's credit report immediately if the victim submits a police report filed about the identity theft to the bureau.
				Identity theft is defined as a misdemeanor crime, so law enforcement officials must record a police report when you report identity theft to them (something some law enforcement officials have been reluctant to do in the past).
		The State of California's Department of Consumer Affairs warns that not all law enforcement officers will be aware of this new law when it goes into effect on July 1, 1998. If the police hesitate to file a report, California victims of identity theft should ask the police to issue a police report pursuant to Penal Code section 530.5.
		wo bills currently under consideration in Congress could bring similar new protections to victims of identity theft across the country. The Identity Piracy Act of 1998 and the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 would both amend the U.S. legal code to:
				Define and prohibit identity fraud
				Authorize the court to require identity thieves to make restitution to their victims for costs (including attorney's fees) incurred in clearing his or her credit history
				Direct federal agencies to collect and maintain statistical information about identity fraud, so that the nature and extent of the problem can be better understood.
		The two laws are very similar, although the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 (H.R. 3601) has tougher sentencing provisions that may offer stronger protections for identity fraud victims. Both of these bills are still moving through the legislative process, so if you feel strongly about the need for better legal protection for consumers against identity theft, you can contact your representatives and ask them to support one or both of these bills (see sidebar).
		Back to CreditCheck Newsletter Index
		Report Express   |   Order Now   |   Members' Home CreditCheck Monitoring Service   |   3-Agency Credit Report Security & Privacy   |   CreditCheck Tools   |   Credit Basics   |   FAQ   |   Contact Us ConsumerInfo.Com® Home Copyright © 2000 ConsumerInfo.Com®, Inc. All Rights Reserved