GAO-02-766, Identity Theft: Greater Awareness and Use of Existing Data Are Needed


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-766 
entitled 'Identity Theft: Greater Awareness and Use of Existing Data 
Are Needed' which was released on July 30, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to the Honorable Sam Johnson House of Representatives:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



June 2002:



identity Theft:



Greater Awareness and Use of Existing Data Are Needed:



Awareness and Use of Identity Theft Data:



GAO-02-766:



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



No Comprehensive Data on Law Enforcement Results under the Federal 

Identity Theft Act, but Case Examples Illustrate Use of the Law:



No Comprehensive Data on Enforcement Results under State Identity Theft 

Statutes, but Case Examples Illustrate Use of Such Laws:



Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Use Various Means to 

Promote Cooperation or Coordination in Addressing Identity Theft 

Crimes:



SSA/OIG Actions to Resolve SSN Misuse and Other Identity Theft-Related 

Allegations:



Conclusions:



Recommendation for Executive Action:



Agency Comments:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Objectives:



Scope and Methodology:



Appendix II: Examples of Cases Prosecuted under the Federal Identity 

Theft Act:



Illinois, Northern District, Eastern Division:



Michigan, Western District, Southern Division:



North Carolina, Eastern District:



Ohio, Southern District:



Wisconsin, Eastern District:



Appendix III: Identity Theft Subcommittee Membership:



Appendix IV: Law Enforcement Agencies with Access to Identity

Theft Data Clearinghouse Via Consumer Sentinel:



Appendix V: Military-Related Identity Theft Cases and Plans for Soldier 

Sentinel System:



Examples of Military-Related Identity Theft Cases:



Plans to Establish the Soldier Sentinel System:



Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Justice:



Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Tables:



Table 1: States That Have Identity Theft Statutes (by Year of 

Enactment):



Table 2: Sentencing Provisions of Selected States’ Identity Theft Laws:



Table 3: Participants in Electronic Crimes Task Force Developed by 

Secret Service’s Washington Field Office:



Table 4: Participants in the Sacramento Valley High-Technology Crimes 

Task Force:



Table 5: Allegations Received by SSA/OIG and Investigative Cases 

Opened, Fiscal Year 1999:



Table 6: Results, as of April 30, 2002, of SSA/OIG Investigations 

Opened in Fiscal Year 1999:



Table 7: Number of Identity Theft Complaints Received by FTC (Nov. 1999 

through Sept. 2001) for Selected States:



Table 8: State and Local Agencies Contacted in 10 States:



Table 9: List of Federal Agencies and National Organizations 

Represented on the Identity Theft Subcommittee:



Abbreviations:



EOUSA: Executive Office for United States Attorneys:



FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:



FTC: Federal Trade Commission:



IRS: Internal Revenue Service:



LEGIT: law enforcement getting identity thieves:



OIG: Office of the Inspector General:



SSA: Social Security Administration:



SSN: Social Security number:



UCR: Uniform Crime Reporting:



June 28, 2002:



The Honorable Sam Johnson

House of Representatives:



Dear Mr. Johnson:



This report responds to your request that we review federal and state 

efforts to address identity theft, which has been characterized by law 

enforcement as the fastest growing type of crime in the United States. 

As noted in our May 1998 report,[Footnote 1] identity theft or identity 

fraud generally involves “stealing” another person’s personal 

identifying information--such as Social Security number (SSN), date of 

birth, and mother’s maiden name--and then using the information to 

fraudulently establish credit, run up debt, or take over existing 

financial accounts. Later that year, Congress passed the Identity Theft 

and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 (the Identity Theft 

Act).[Footnote 2] Enacted in October 1998, the federal statute made 

identity theft a separate crime against the person whose identity was 

stolen, broadened the scope of the offense to include the misuse of 

information as well as documents, and provided punishment--generally a 

fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years or both. Also, since 1998, most 

states have enacted laws that criminalize identity theft. Thus, various 

federal and numerous state and local law enforcement agencies are 

responsible for investigating identity theft crimes. Relevant federal 

agencies include the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), and the Postal Inspection Service, as well as the 

Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG), which receives SSN misuse and other identity theft-related 

allegations on its fraud hotline.



The passage of federal and state identity theft legislation indicates 

that this type of crime has been widely recognized as a serious problem 

across the nation. Now, a current focus for policymakers and criminal 

justice administrators is to ensure that these laws are effectively 

enforced.



Specifically, in response to your request, this report provides 

information on:



* law enforcement results (such as examples of prosecutions and 

convictions) under the federal Identity Theft Act;



* law enforcement results under state statutes that, similar to the 

federal act, provide state and local law enforcement officials with the 

tools to prosecute and convict identity theft criminals;



* the means used to promote cooperation or coordination among federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies in addressing identity theft 

crimes that span multiple jurisdictions; and



* actions taken by the SSA/OIG to resolve SSN misuse and other identity 

theft-related allegations received during fiscal year 1999.



To address these questions, we interviewed responsible officials and 

reviewed documentation obtained from the Department of Justice and its 

components, including the Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

(EOUSA) and the FBI; the Department of the Treasury and its components, 

including the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); 

the SSA/OIG; and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Also, we conducted 

a literature search to obtain examples of cases prosecuted under the 

federal Identity Theft Act. Regarding state and local law enforcement 

efforts, we focused on 10 states--Arizona, California, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and 

Wisconsin--which we judgmentally selected on the basis of having either 

the highest incidences of reported identity theft or the longest-

standing applicable statutes. We conducted our work from July 2001 to 

May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. 

Appendix I presents more details about the scope and methodology of our 

work.



Results in Brief:



We found no comprehensive or centralized data on enforcement results 

under the federal Identity Theft Act. However, according to a Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, federal prosecutors are using the 1998 

federal law. Moreover, in response to our inquiries, Justice Department 

Criminal Division officials said that federal prosecutors consider the 

Identity Theft Act to be a useful statute because it provides broad 

jurisdiction and is another tool to use in combating white-collar or 

financial crimes--such as bank fraud, credit card fraud, and mail 

fraud--that typically have elements of identity theft. Our review of 

selected cases prosecuted under the federal act illustrate that 

identity theft generally is not a stand-alone crime. Rather, identity 

theft typically is a component of one or more other white-collar or 

financial crimes.



As with the federal act, we found no centralized or comprehensive data 

on enforcement results under state identity theft statutes. However, 

officials in the 10 states we selected for study provided us with 

examples of actual investigations or prosecutions under these statutes. 

Presented for illustration purposes only, these cases are not 

necessarily representative of identity theft crimes in these or other 

states. Officials we contacted in these states also noted various 

continuing challenges encountered in enforcing identity theft statutes. 

For instance, because identity theft is still a “nontraditional” crime, 

some police departments may be unaware of the importance of taking 

reports of identity theft, much less initiating investigations. Also, 

it is important that law enforcement resources be allocated to meet 

priorities. In this regard, officials in several of the 10 states told 

us that limited resources are allocated to priorities such as violent 

crimes and drug offenses and, thus, the number of investigators and 

prosecutors for addressing identity theft often is insufficient. 

Further, according to some of the officials we contacted, because many 

identity theft cases present multi-or cross-jurisdictional issues--

such as when a perpetrator steals personal information in one city and 

uses the information to conduct fraudulent activities in another city 

or state--law enforcement agencies sometimes tend to view identity 

theft as being “someone else’s problem.”



Generally, the prevalence of identity theft and the frequently multi-or 

cross-jurisdictional nature of such crime underscore the importance of 

having means for promoting cooperation or coordination among federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies. One of the most commonly 

used means of coordination, task forces, can have participating 

agencies from all levels of law enforcement--federal, state, and local-

-and, in some instances, can have participants from banks and other 

private sector entities. Another relevant coordination entity is the 

U.S. Attorney General’s Identity Theft Subcommittee, whose membership 

includes various federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies, as 

well as state and local representation. In 1999, among other purposes, 

the Attorney General’s White Collar Crime Council established the 

subcommittee to promote cooperation and coordination in addressing 

identity theft cases involving multiple jurisdictions.



Another vehicle for coordination is the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel 

Network, which is a secure, encrypted Web site for use by law 

enforcement agencies. In 1999, FTC established a central database (the 

Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse) to collect information reported by 

identity theft victims. Law enforcement agencies can use the Consumer 

Sentinel Network to access the Clearinghouse database and scan consumer 

complaints matching certain criteria to determine, for example, if 

there is a larger pattern of criminal activity. However, relatively few 

law enforcement agencies have used the Consumer Sentinel Network, and 

centralized analysis of database information to generate investigative 

leads and referrals has also been limited. FTC staff said that the 

availability of the database as an aid for law enforcement is still 

relatively new and some potential users may still be unaware of this 

investigative resource. We are recommending that the Attorney General 

have the Identity Theft Subcommittee promote greater awareness and use 

of the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Clearinghouse database by all 

levels of law enforcement.



While SSA/OIG’s fraud hotline annually receives thousands of 

allegations involving either (1) SSN misuse or (2) program fraud with 

SSN misuse potential, the agency concentrates its investigative 

resources on the latter category of allegations because the protection 

of Social Security trust funds is a priority. In these 2 categories, 

SSA/OIG received approximately 62,000 allegations in fiscal year 1999, 

and the agency opened investigative cases on 4,636 (about 7 percent) of 

these allegations. About three in four of the investigative cases 

involved program fraud-related allegations. SSA/OIG statistics for 

investigative cases opened in fiscal year 1999 indicate that a total of 

1,347 cases had resulted in criminal convictions or other judicial 

actions, as of April 30, 2002. During our review, the SSA Inspector 

General told us that his office does not have enough investigators to 

address all of the SSN misuse allegations received on the agency’s 

fraud hotline. However, FTC staff noted that, starting in February 

2001, FTC began to routinely upload information from SSA/OIG’s fraud 

hotline about these allegations into FTC’s Identity Theft Data 

Clearinghouse, thereby making the information available to law 

enforcement agencies via the Consumer Sentinel Network.



In a letter dated June 19, 2002, the Department of Justice generally 

agreed with the substance of this report and the recommendation made. 

Further, Justice noted several actions that it has taken or will take 

to directly address the recommendation.



Background:



Under the federal Identity Theft Act, a criminal offense is committed 

if a person “knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a 

means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or 

to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of 

Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or 

local law …” The relevant section of this legislation is codified at 18 

U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)(“fraud and related activity in connection with 

identification documents and information”). According to an analysis of 

the new law by the United States Sentencing Commission:[Footnote 3]



* Before passage of the 1998 act, the unauthorized use or transfer of 

identity documents was illegal under title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 

1028--which included subsections (a)(1) through (a)(6). The 

unauthorized use of credit cards, personal identification numbers, 

automated teller machine codes, and other electronic access devices was 

illegal under another section of the U.S. Code--that is, 18 U.S.C. § 

1029 (“fraud and related activity in connection with access devices”).



* The addition of subsection (a)(7) to section 1028 expanded the 

definition of “means of identification” to include such information as 

SSN and other government identification numbers, dates of birth, and 

unique biometric data (e.g., fingerprints), as well as electronic 

access devices and routing codes used in the financial and 

telecommunications sectors.



* Under the Identity Theft Act, the new definition of means of 

identification includes prior statutory definitions of “identification 

documents.”



According to the United States Sentencing Commission, a key impact is 

to make the proscriptions of the new identity theft law applicable to a 

wide range of offense conduct, which can be independently prosecuted 

under numerous existing statutes. That is, any unauthorized use of 

means of identification can now be charged either as a violation of the 

new law or in conjunction with other federal statutes.



In further elaboration of the breadth of the definition of means of 

identification and its impact, the Sentencing Commission’s analysis 

noted the following:



* The new law covers offense conduct already covered by a multitude of 

other federal statutes. The unauthorized use of credit cards, for 

instance, is already prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1029, but now also 

can be prosecuted under the newly enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7).



* Other examples of offense conduct include providing a false SSN or 

other identification number to obtain a tax refund and presenting false 

passports or immigration documents by using the names and addresses and 

photos of lawful residents or citizens to enter the United States.



In total, according to the Sentencing Commission, the violation of some 

180 federal criminal statutes can potentially fall within the ambit of 

18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7).



Regarding state statutes, at the time of our 1998 report, only a few 

states had specific laws to address identity theft. Now, as table 1 

shows, 44 states have specific laws that address identity theft, and 5 

other states have laws that cover activities included within the 

definition of identity theft. Almost one-half (22) of these 49 states 

enacted relevant laws in 1999. According to FTC’s analysis, identity 

theft can be a felony offense in 45 of the 49 states that have laws to 

address this crime.[Footnote 4]



Table 1: States That Have Identity Theft Statutes (by Year of 

Enactment):



Year of enactment: 1996; States with specific laws to address identity 

theft: Arizona; Number: 1.



Year of enactment: 1997; States with specific laws to address identity 

theft: California and Wisconsin; Number: 2.



Year of enactment: 1998; States with specific laws to address identity 

theft: Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi,[A] and West 

Virginia; Number: 5.



Year of enactment: 1999; States with specific laws to address identity 

theft: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming; Number: 22.



Year of enactment: 2000; States with specific laws to address identity 

theft: Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia; Number: 9.



Year of enactment: 2001; States with specific laws to address identity 

theft: Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Montana, and New Mexico; Number: 5.



Year of enactment: Total; States with specific laws to address identity 

theft: [Empty]; Number: 44.



Note: According to the FTC, five other states--Colorado, Hawaii, 

Nebraska, New York, and Maine--have laws that cover activities included 

within the definition of identity theft but are not coterminous with 

it, and one other state (Vermont) is collecting data to consider 

enacting possible identity theft legislation.



[A] Mississippi possibly enacted the nation’s first identity theft 

statute (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-85), even though it was titled as a 

“false pretenses” statute rather than specifically labeled as an 

“identity theft” statute. Originally enacted in 1993, the statute was 

amended in 1998 to include additional identifiers and increase 

punishment from a misdemeanor to a felony.



Source: FTC data. Also, note “a” is based on our analysis of the 

Mississippi statute and a follow-up discussion with an official in the 

Mississippi Attorney General’s Office.



[End of table]



In the view of Justice Department Criminal Division officials, the 

enactment of state identity theft laws has multi-jurisdictional 

benefits to all levels of law enforcement--federal, state, and local. 

In explanation, Justice officials commented that the various state 

statutes, coupled with the federal statute, provide a broader framework 

for addressing identity theft, particularly when a multi-agency task 

force approach is used. The Justice officials noted, for instance, that 

it is very plausible for a task force to generate multiple cases, some 

of which can result in federal prosecutions and others in state or 

local prosecutions.



Generally, law enforcement agencies widely acknowledge that SSNs often 

are used as identifiers by thieves to obtain or “breed” other 

identification documentation. Through its fraud hotline, SSA/OIG 

annually receives thousands of allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Most of these allegations are classified by SSA/OIG as involving either 

(1) SSN misuse or (2) program fraud that may contain elements of SSN 

misuse. In these two categories, SSA/OIG received about 62,000 

allegations in fiscal year 1999, about 83,000 allegations in fiscal 

year 2000, and about 104,000 allegations in fiscal year 2001. SSA/OIG 

officials explained these two categories of allegations as follows:



* Allegations of “SSN misuse” include, for example, incidents where a 

criminal uses the SSN of another individual for the purpose of 

fraudulently obtaining credit, establishing utility services, or 

acquiring goods. SSNs are also misused to violate immigration laws, 

flee the criminal justice system by assuming a new identity, or obtain 

personal information to stalk an individual. Generally, this category 

of allegations does not directly involve SSA program benefits.



* On the other hand, allegations of fraud in SSA programs for the aged, 

survivors, or disabled often entail some element of SSN misuse. For 

example, a criminal may use the victim’s SSN or other identifying 

information for the purpose of obtaining Social Security benefits. When 

hotline staff receive this type of allegation, it is to be classified 

under the appropriate category of program fraud.



In 1999, SSA/OIG analyzed a sample of SSN misuse allegations and 

determined that about 82 percent of such allegations related directly 

to identity theft.[Footnote 5] The analysis covered a statistical 

sample of 400 allegations from a universe of 16,375 allegations 

received by the fraud hotline from October 1997 through March 1999. The 

analysis did not cover the other category mentioned previously, that 

is, allegations of program-related fraud with SSN misuse potential.



No Comprehensive Data on Law Enforcement Results under the Federal 

Identity Theft Act, but Case Examples Illustrate Use of the Law:



There are no comprehensive statistics on the number of investigations, 

convictions, or other law enforcement results under the Identity Theft 

Act. As noted in our March 2002 report,[Footnote 6] federal law 

enforcement agencies generally do not have information systems that 

facilitate specific tracking of identity theft cases. For example, 

while the amendments made by the Identity Theft Act are included as 

subsection (a)(7) of section 1028, Title 18 of the U.S. Code, EOUSA 

does not have comprehensive statistics on offenses charged specifically 

under that subsection. EOUSA officials explained that, except for 

certain firearms statutes, staff are required to record cases only to 

the U.S. Code section, not the subsection or the sub-subsection.



Given the absence of comprehensive statistics, we obtained relevant 

anecdotes or examples of actual investigations and prosecutions under 

the federal statute. For instance, about 2 years after passage of the 

Identity Theft Act, a senior Department of Justice official testified 

at a May 2001 congressional hearing that U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

throughout the nation were making substantial use of the new federal 

law that recognized identity theft as a separate crime.[Footnote 7] In 

testimony, the Justice official said that federal prosecutors had used 

the new statute--18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)--in at least 92 cases to date. 

One example cited in the testimony involved a defendant who stole 

private bank account information about an insurance company’s 

policyholders and used that information to withdraw funds from the 

accounts of the policyholders and deposit approximately 4,300 

counterfeit bank drafts totaling more than $764,000. The case was 

prosecuted in the Central District of California. The defendant pled 

guilty to identity theft and related charges and was sentenced to 27 

months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release.



Another case cited by the Justice official illustrates that identity 

theft crimes can have fact-pattern elements encompassing more than one 

jurisdiction. The case involved a California resident, who committed 

fraudulent acts in the state of Washington by, among other means, using 

a Massachusetts driver’s license bearing the name of an actual person 

not associated with the criminal activities. Also, this case further 

illustrates that identity theft is rarely a stand-alone crime; rather, 

it frequently is a component of one or more white-collar or financial 

crimes, such as bank fraud, credit card or access device fraud, or wire 

fraud. Pertinent details of this case, prosecuted in the Western 

District of Washington, are as follows:



* Over a period of time in 1999 and 2000, the defendant and other 

conspirators assumed the identities of third persons without their 

consent and authorization and fraudulently used the SSNs and names of 

actual persons. Also, the conspirators created false identity 

documents, such as state identification cards, driver’s licenses, and 

immigration cards. Using the identities and names of third persons, the 

conspirators opened banking and investment accounts at numerous 

locations and obtained credit cards.



* The defendant and other conspirators presented and deposited at least 

12 counterfeit checks (valued in excess of $1 million) to various banks 

and investment companies in western Washington. Also, the conspirators 

purchased legitimate cashiers checks, in nominal amounts, and then 

altered them to reflect substantially greater amounts. The conspirators 

presented or deposited at least five altered checks (worth almost 

$350,000) in the Seattle area.



According to Justice, in July 2000, the defendant pled guilty to 

committing three felony counts of identity theft, conspiring to commit 

wire fraud involving attempted losses in excess of $1 million, and 

using an unauthorized credit card.



During our current review, Justice Department Criminal Division 

officials told us that federal prosecutors consider the Identity Theft 

Act to be a very useful statute. The officials said, for instance, that 

prosecutors endorse the statute because it provides broad jurisdiction. 

Further, the Justice officials noted that the Identity Theft Act 

provides another tool for prosecutors to use, even though in many 

instances the defendants may be charged under other white-collar crime 

statutes. The officials explained that identity theft is rarely a 

stand-alone crime. Thus, cases involving identity theft or identity 

fraud may have charges under a variety of different statutes relating 

to these defendants’ other crimes, such as bank fraud, credit card 

fraud, or mail fraud. Appendix II summarizes selected federal cases 

prosecuted for such multiple charges, including charges of violations 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7).



No Comprehensive Data on Enforcement Results under State Identity Theft 

Statutes, but Case Examples Illustrate Use of Such Laws:



As with the federal Identity Theft Act, we found no centralized or 

comprehensive data on enforcement results under state identity theft 

statutes. However, officials in selected states provided us with 

examples of actual cases illustrating the use of such statutes. Also, 

officials in these states noted various challenges encountered in 

enforcing identity theft statutes--challenges involving topics such as 

the filing of police reports, the use of limited resources, and the 

resolution of jurisdictional issues.



Case Examples Illustrate Use of State Identity Theft Laws:



The crime of identity theft is not specifically recorded as an offense 

category in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.[Footnote 

8] Further, our inquiries with various national organizations--the 

National Association of Attorneys General, the National District 

Attorneys Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police--indicated that these entities do not have comprehensive data on 

arrests or convictions under state identity theft laws.



In the absence of national data on enforcement of state identity theft 

laws, we contacted officials in 10 states--Arizona, California, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, 

and Wisconsin.[Footnote 9] As table 2 shows, each of these 10 states 

has a specific statute that makes identity theft a crime and provides 

for imprisonment of convicted offenders. The length of imprisonment 

varies by state, ranging upward to as long as 30 years.



Table 2: Sentencing Provisions of Selected States’ Identity Theft Laws:



State: Arizona; State code citation: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2008; 

Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment of 2-1/2 to 12 years.



State: California; State code citation: Cal. Penal Code § 530.5; 

Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment not to exceed 1 year, or fines up 

to $10,000, or both.



State: Florida; State code citation: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 817.568; 

Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment of up to 5 years and fines up to 

$5,000, or both. In addition, the defendant may be ordered to pay up to 

double the pecuniary gain of the defendant or pecuniary loss of the 

victim.



State: Georgia; State code citation: Ga. Code Ann. §§ 16-9-121; 

Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment of 1 to 10 years and the defendant 

may be ordered to make restitution.



State: Illinois; State code citation: 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/16G; 

Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment from 1 to 30 years.



State: Michigan; State code citation: Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.285; 

Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment up to 5 years, or fines up to 

$10,000, or both.



State: New Jersey; State code citation: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C: 21-17; 

Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment up to 10 years.



State: Pennsylvania; State code citation: 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 

4120; Sentencing provisions: Imprisonment up to 10 years, or fines up 

to $25,000, or both.



State: Texas; State code citation: Tex. Penal Code § 32.51; Sentencing 

provisions: Imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine not to exceed 

$10,000.



State: Wisconsin; State code citation: Wis. Stat. § 943.201; Sentencing 

provisions: Imprisonment up to 10 years, or fines up to $10,000, or 

both.



Source: GAO summary of state statutes.



[End of table]



As with the national organizations we contacted, state officials could 

not provide aggregate data on law enforcement results (e.g., total 

number of arrests, prosecutions, or convictions) under their respective 

state’s identity theft statute. However, the officials were able to 

provide us with examples of actual cases prosecuted under these 

statutes. The following sections discuss case examples for three 

states--California, Michigan, and Texas. Presented for illustration 

purposes only, these cases are not necessarily representative of 

identity theft crimes in these or other states. Also, as with federal 

cases, the state case examples also indicate that identity theft can be 

a component of other crimes, such as check and credit card fraud, as 

well as computer-related crimes.



California: High Prevalence of Identity Theft:



Effective January 1, 1998, under section 530.5 of the California Penal 

Code, any person “who willfully obtains personal information … of 

another person without the authorization of that person, and uses that 

information for any unlawful purpose, including to obtain, or attempt 

to obtain credit, goods, services, or medical information in the name 

of the person without the consent of that person, is guilty of a public 

offense.”[Footnote 10] According to the officials we contacted in 

California, there is not a centralized source of aggregate or statewide 

statistics regarding the number of investigations, arrests, or 

prosecutions under California’s identity theft statute. However, 

federal law enforcement officials told us that, relative to many other 

states, the prevalence of identity theft appears to be high in 

California. The federal officials also commented that new or different 

types of identity theft schemes often appear to originate on the west 

coast and then spread east.



Regarding identity theft cases handled at the state level, in October 

2001, one California deputy attorney general told us that she was 

handling four active cases, and she commented that these were a “tiny 

drop in the bucket” in reference to prevalence. Further, she noted that 

the four active cases had one thing in common, that is, the number of 

victims was “in the hundreds” or even “never ending.” Also, in October 

2001, another California deputy attorney general told us that, at an 

identity theft conference hosted by the California attorney general in 

May 2001, two local law enforcement agencies reported thousands of 

active cases. Specifically, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office 

reported 2,000 active cases, and the Los Angeles Police Department 

reported 5,000 active cases.



More recently, in March 2002, we contacted the Los Angeles Police 

Department to obtain updated information. According to the detective 

supervisor of the Identity Theft and Credit Card Squad, over 8,000 

cases of identity theft were reported to the department in calendar 

year 2001. He estimated that about 70 percent of these identity theft-

related cases involved utility or cellular telephone fraud and the 

other 30 percent involved credit card fraud and check fraud. Further, 

the detective supervisor said that the department accepts reports of 

identity theft only if the victim is a resident of Los Angeles.



Michigan: Cases under the State’s 5-year Felony Statute:



Michigan’s identity theft statute--codified at Mich. Comp. Laws § 

750.285--was adopted by the state legislature on December 7, 2000, and 

became effective April 1, 2001. This new law created a 5-year felony 

offense for identity theft, making it illegal for a person to obtain or 

attempt to obtain, without authorization, the “personal identity 

information” of another person with the intent to use that information 

unlawfully to (1) obtain financial credit, employment, or access to 

medical records or information contained in them; (2) purchase or 

otherwise obtain or lease any real or personal property; or (3) commit 

any illegal act. One state-level entity that handles investigations and 

prosecutions of identity theft is the High Tech Crime Unit of the 

Michigan Department of the Attorney General. This unit deals with 

computer crimes and crimes committed over the Internet--crimes in which 

identity theft is often an aspect.



According to the Michigan assistant attorney general who serves as 

Chief of the High Tech Crime Unit, the state’s first criminal 

prosecution under the 5-year felony statute was initiated by the unit 

in August 2001. In this case, a woman was charged with stealing 

personal identity information from her former employer, using that 

information to apply over the Internet for several credit cards, and 

making purchases (approximately $1,000) on such cards, without 

authorization. The woman pled guilty and was sentenced to 1 year 

probation and required to pay restitution. The Chief also said that, as 

of June 2002, three other cases were pending under Michigan’s identity 

theft statute.



We also contacted the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Oakland 

County, Michigan.[Footnote 11] A deputy prosecutor told us that in the 

approximately 8 months since Michigan’s identity theft statute has been 

in effect--that is, from April 1, 2001, to the time of our inquiry in 

early December 2001--one case had been initiated in Oakland County 

under the statute. This official said that the case, which involved a 

defendant who had obtained the victim’s personal information and used 

it to apply for a credit card, was still ongoing in the county’s court 

system.



Texas: State Statute Modeled after Federal Law:



Texas’ identity theft statute--codified at Texas Penal Code § 32.51--

became effective September 1, 1999. Modeled after the federal Identity 

Theft Act, a person commits the offense of identity theft under Texas’ 

law if he or she “obtains, possesses, transfers, or uses identifying 

information of another person without the other person’s consent or 

with intent to harm or defraud another.” According to officials we 

contacted in Texas, there is not a centralized source of aggregate or 

statewide statistics regarding the number of identity theft 

investigations, arrests, or prosecutions under Texas Penal Code § 

32.51:



In response to our inquiry, the Internet Bureau of the Texas Attorney 

General’s Office reported that it had opened 12 identity theft cases 

during the period September 2000 through August 2001. According to an 

Internet Bureau official, these cases had resulted in three arrests and 

indictments, as of November 2001. In one of these cases, a temporary 

employee of a technology company allegedly stole personal identifying 

information from the company’s employee database and provided the 

information to an accomplice, who used the information to apply for 

bank credit online and collect fees paid by the banks for each 

application. Reportedly, the scheme affected hundreds of employees. The 

Internet Bureau official told us that each application using a stolen 

identity was considered a separate violation and that two suspects had 

been criminally charged.



We also contacted the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. While 

the office did not have any readily available statistics on identity 

theft cases, an assistant district attorney said that the office had 

handled a variety of identity theft cases, involving check and credit 

card fraud, as well as fraudulent purchases of vehicles and the 

acquisition of utility services. The assistant district attorney noted 

that some of these crimes had been perpetrated by organized rings. One 

example cited involved a group of three individuals, who made 

approximately $750,000 in illegal transactions in less than 180 days by 

using identity fraud coupled with other traditional crimes such as 

credit card abuse, forgery of commercial instruments, and securing 

loans through deception.



Enforcement Challenges Regarding State Statutes:



Generally, many of the 10 states’ officials with whom we talked noted 

various challenges or obstacles to enforcing identity theft statutes. 

As discussed in the following sections, these challenges involved 

topics such as the filing of police reports, the use of limited 

resources, and the resolution of jurisdictional issues.



Local Police Are Not Always Documenting Identity Theft Crimes Reported 

by Victims:



Efforts taken by identity theft victims to file reports with law 

enforcement agencies are an important first step in being able to 

investigate such crime. Also, police reports can be useful to consumers 

who are victims of identity theft and who need to provide documentation 

of such to creditors and debt collectors. However, FTC data show that 

59 percent of the victims who contacted the FTC during a 12-month 

period (Nov. 1999 through Oct. 2000) had already contacted the police, 

but 35 percent of these victims reported that they could not get a 

police report. Partly because identity theft is still a non-traditional 

crime, some police departments are unaware of the importance of taking 

reports of identity theft, much less initiating investigations.



To help address this issue, FTC staff, in conjunction with the Identity 

Theft Subcommittee (see app. III), began working with the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police to encourage police officers to write 

police reports for victims of identity theft. As a result, in November 

2000, the association adopted a resolution calling for “all law 

enforcement agencies in the United States to take more positive actions 

in recording all incidents of identity theft.” Regarding the need for 

more positive actions, the resolution noted that:



“… reports of identity theft to local law enforcement agencies are 

often handled with the response ‘please contact your credit card 

company,’ and often no official report is created or maintained, 

causing great difficulty in accounting for and tracing these crimes, 

and leaving the public with the impression their local police 

department does not care…”:



According to FTC staff, even though the association’s resolution is not 

binding, it sends an important message to police around the country. 

Also, FTC staff indicated that the same message has been reinforced by 

FTC staff in numerous law enforcement conferences throughout the 

nation. FTC data show that 46 percent of the victims who contacted the 

FTC in calendar year 2001 reported that they had already contacted a 

police department, and 18 percent of these victims reported that they 

could not get a police report--which represents a reduction of about 

half from the percentage of victims who reported being unable to get a 

police report in the November 1999 through October 2000 period.



Despite progress, the importance of police reports is a topic for 

continuing focus. For example, in January 2002, a Florida study 

reported that some of the state’s law enforcement agencies “are 

reluctant to take identity theft complaints and do not generate reports 

in some cases.”[Footnote 12] Consequently, the study recommended that 

“all law enforcement agencies be required to generate a report on 

identity theft complaints regardless of their subsequent decision on 

whether or not they will investigate the case.”:



Also, during our review, a federal official told us that a continuing 

priority of the Attorney General’s Identity Theft Subcommittee[Footnote 

13] is to help educate local police departments about the critical 

first step of taking reports from victims of identity theft crime. In 

this regard, the Secret Service is developing a police training video 

with the cooperation of the FTC, Department of Justice, and the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, which is anticipated to 

be completed by September 30, 2002. Among other purposes, the training 

video is to emphasize the importance of police reports in identity 

theft cases.



State Officials Cited Insufficient Resources as an Obstacle to More 

Fully Addressing Identity Theft:



Officials in several of the 10 states included in our study told us 

that the level of resources being allocated to investigate and 

prosecute identity theft often is insufficient. This observation was 

voiced, for example, by a deputy district attorney in California (Los 

Angeles County), who told us that there are not enough investigators 

and prosecutors to handle the county’s identity theft cases.



Similar comments were provided to us by a supervisor in the Consumer 

Fraud Division of the Illinois Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, 

which reportedly is the second largest prosecutor’s office in the 

nation, with over 900 assistant state’s attorneys. In addition to 

noting that more prosecutors and support staff were needed to 

effectively combat identity theft, the supervisor commented that funds 

were needed for training local police agencies how to handle the more 

complex cases involving multiple victims, multiple jurisdictions, and 

voluminous documents.



Further, a chief deputy attorney in the Philadelphia District 

Attorney’s Office commented that, given competing priorities and other 

factors, there is little incentive for police departments in 

Pennsylvania to allocate resources for investigating identity theft 

cases. This official said that police departments are more inclined to 

use their limited resources for investigating violent crimes and drug 

offenses rather than handling complicated identity theft cases that, 

even if successfully prosecuted, often lead to relatively light 

sentences. In explanation, the chief deputy attorney noted the 

following:



* Identity theft cases require highly trained investigators, require 

longer-than-usual efforts, and often end without an arrest.



* Also, under the state’s identity theft statute, the first offense is 

a misdemeanor, although identity theft may be a “lesser included 

offense” with felony charges involving forgery and theft, given that 

the fact patterns of these crimes may overlap.



* Even when convictions are obtained, identity theft cases generally do 

not result in long sentences. For instance, to get a minimum prison 

term of 1 year for an economic crime in Pennsylvania, a defendant 

probably would have to steal approximately $100,000. In contrast, a 

felony drug case conviction involving more than 2 grams of cocaine or 

heroin--an amount with a street value of about $200--has a mandatory 

minimum sentence of 1 year of imprisonment.



Despite resource and other challenges, the chief deputy attorney said 

that the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office does handle identity 

theft cases. He estimated, for instance, that the office investigated 

about 100 to 200 identity theft cases in calendar year 2000, and he 

said these cases represented a “small fraction” of the total number of 

reported cases in Philadelphia.



State Officials Cited Jurisdiction Issues as an Obstacle to More Fully 

Addressing Identity Theft:



According to many of the state and local officials we contacted, 

jurisdiction and venue problems are common in identity theft cases. The 

officials noted, for instance, that many identity theft cases present 

cross-jurisdictional issues, such as when a perpetrator steals personal 

information in one city and uses the information to conduct fraudulent 

activities in another city or another state. In this regard, an 

official in one state told us that law enforcement agencies sometimes 

tend to view identity theft as being “someone else’s problem.” That is, 

the police department in the victim’s area of residence refer the 

victim to the police department in another county or state where the 

perpetrator used the personal information--and, in turn, the remote 

police department refers the victim back to the area-of-residence 

police department.



To help mitigate this type of problem, some of the states’ identity 

theft statutes have provisions that permit multiple counties to have 

jurisdiction. For example, Arizona’s identity theft statute has a 

provision that allows victims to file reports in any jurisdiction 

within the state where the theft or related activities arising from the 

theft occur. Thus, if a credit card is stolen in Phoenix and used in 

Tempe, the victim may file in either jurisdiction. Similarly, Florida 

modified its identity theft statute, effective July 1, 2001, to specify 

that the crime of identity theft can be investigated and prosecuted in 

the county in which the victim resides or where any element of the 

crime occurred. Also, during our study, a Wisconsin Department of 

Justice official told us that consideration was being given to amending 

Wisconsin’s identity theft law to permit prosecution of such crime in 

the jurisdiction of the victim’s residence, in addition to any 

jurisdiction where the stolen personal identity information was 

fraudulently used.



Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Use Various Means to 

Promote Cooperation or Coordination in Addressing Identity Theft 

Crimes:



Many federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have roles in 

investigating and prosecuting identity theft. Federal agencies include, 

for example, the FBI, Secret Service, IRS (Criminal Investigation), 

Postal Inspection Service, and SSA/OIG, as well as U.S. Attorney 

Offices. However, most identity theft crimes fall within the 

responsibility of local investigators and prosecutors--such as city 

police departments or county sheriffs’ offices and county district 

attorney offices, although state-level agencies, such as state attorney 

general offices, also have a role.



Generally, the prevalence of identity theft and the frequently multi-or 

cross-jurisdictional nature of such crime underscore the importance of 

having means for promoting cooperation or coordination among federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies. One such means is the 

establishment of law enforcement task forces with multi-agency 

participation. Other relevant means include a coordinating entity (the 

Attorney General’s Identity Theft Subcommittee) and an information-

sharing database (accessible via the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network) 

established with federal leadership. However, as discussed in the 

following sections, there are opportunities for promoting greater 

awareness and use of the Consumer Sentinel Network.



Law Enforcement Task Forces that Address Identity Theft:



The use of task forces is perhaps the most commonly used means for 

promoting cooperation or coordination among law enforcement agencies to 

address identity theft cases involving multiple jurisdictions. A main 

advantage of task forces, according to Secret Service officials, is 

that the pooling of resources and expertise results in more thorough 

investigations and better continuity from inception of the 

investigations through prosecution. The officials also noted that 

improved interagency relationships result in the sharing of 

investigative leads, bridging of jurisdictional boundaries, and 

avoiding duplication of efforts. Regarding the views of state 

officials, a California deputy attorney general, who was working on a 

task force that included federal and local law enforcement agencies, 

told us that this approach simplified all aspects of multi-

jurisdictional issues, particularly given that each agency has its own 

“go to” person.



Generally, task forces can have participating agencies from all levels 

of law enforcement--federal, state, and local--and may also have 

private sector representation. The following sections provide examples 

of task forces developed by federal (Secret Service) and state 

(California and Florida) leadership, respectively. The scope of our 

work did not include assessing the effectiveness of these task forces.



Secret Service Task Force Efforts:



At the time of our review, the Secret Service was the lead agency in 38 

task forces across the country that were primarily targeting financial 

and electronic crimes--categories of crimes that frequently have 

identity theft-related elements.[Footnote 14] According to the Secret 

Service, electronic crimes task forces concentrate on crimes involving 

e-commerce, telecommunications fraud, and computer intrusions 

(hacking), as well as cases involving missing and exploited children. 

An identity theft-related example is an investigation initiated in 

December 2000 by the electronic crimes task force of the Secret 

Service’s New York Field Office. According to Secret Service testimony 

presented in May 2001 at a congressional hearing:[Footnote 15]



* The investigation, which was conducted jointly by the Secret Service 

and the New York Police Department, determined that the credit card 

accounts of many of the nation’s wealthiest chief executive officers, 

as well as many other citizens, had been compromised.



* Using the Internet and cellular telephones, the perpetrators obtained 

the victims’ credit card account numbers and then established 

fictitious addresses to conduct fraudulent transactions.



* Also, the perpetrators attempted to transfer approximately $22 

million--from the legitimate brokerage and corporate accounts of the 

victims--into fraudulently established accounts for conversion to the 

perpetrators’ own use.



Table 3 presents an example of another Secret Service electronic crimes 

task force, which was first developed in 1995 by the agency’s 

Washington (District of Columbia) Field Office and has subsequently 

grown to include a total of 32 participating law enforcement agencies 

and private sector entities.



Table 3: Participants in Electronic Crimes Task Force Developed by 

Secret Service’s Washington Field Office:



Task force participants: Federal law enforcement agencies: Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Customs Service; Defense Criminal 

Investigative Service; Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

Department of State; Drug Enforcement Administration; FBI; General 

Services Administration; Immigration and Naturalization Service; 

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; Postal Inspection Service; 

Secret Service; and SSA.; Number of agencies or entities: 13.



Task force participants: State and local law enforcement agencies: 

Bladensburg Police Department, Hyattsville Police Department, Fairfax 

County Police Department, Maryland State Police, Metropolitan Police 

Department, Montgomery County Police Department, Mount Rainier Police 

Department, Prince George’s County Police Department, and Vienna Police 

Department.; Number of agencies or entities: 9.



Task force participants: Private sector entities: Allfirst Bank, Bank 

of America, Bell Atlantic, Cellular One, Chevy Chase Bank, Citibank, 

First Union Bank, MBNA, Target Department Stores, and Wachovia Bank.; 

Number of agencies or entities: 10.



Task force participants: Total number of law enforcement agencies and 

private sector entities; Number of agencies or entities: 32.



Source: Secret Service.



[End of table]



Secret Service officials said that the agency’s task forces generate 

cases that result in prosecutions in state and local courts as well as 

in federal courts. The officials estimated, for instance, that the 

majority (about 60 percent) of the Washington Field Office Task Force’s 

cases had been prosecuted in state courts. Further, regarding the 

operations of Secret Service task forces in general, the officials 

noted that, while the Secret Service may have overall administrative 

responsibility, the role of “quarterback” regarding the investigative 

agenda often is a shared role. In explanation, the officials said that 

the task forces do get involved in cases important to the needs of 

local communities.



California: High-Technology Task Forces Address Identity Theft:



In the mid-1990s, the California Attorney General’s Office established 

five regional task forces in the state to facilitate multi-

jurisdictional investigations and prosecutions of high-technology 

crimes, such as the theft of chips and other computer components. The 

five high-technology task forces also are to address identity theft/

fraud and its related crimes. One of the five is the Sacramento Valley 

High-Technology Crime Task Force, which was reorganized in October 1999 

as a separate division within the Sacramento County Sheriff’s 

Department. The task force includes participants from local, state, and 

federal agencies in the 34 counties of the eastern judicial district of 

the state of California. As of calendar year 2001, a total of 32 

agencies or entities were represented, as table 4 shows.



Table 4: Participants in the Sacramento Valley High-Technology Crimes 

Task Force:



Task force participants: Police departments: Davis, Folsom, Modesto, 

Isleton, Roseville, Sacramento, Turlock, West Sacramento, and Yuba.; 

Number of agencies or entities: 9.



Task force participants: Sheriff’s departments: El Dorado, Merced, 

Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sutter, and Tuolumne.; 

Number of agencies or entities: 8.



Task force participants: District attorney offices: Placer, Sacramento, 

and Yolo.; Number of agencies or entities: 3.



Task force participants: State agencies: Controller’s Office, 

Department of Corrections, Department of Justice, Department of Motor 

Vehicles, Highway Patrol, Probation (Sacramento), and University of 

California (Davis).; Number of agencies or entities: 7.



Task force participants: Federal agencies: FBI, Forest Service, Postal 

Inspection Service, Secret Service, and U.S. Attorney’s Office.; Number 

of agencies or entities: 5.



Task force participants: Total number of agencies and entities; Number 

of agencies or entities: 32.



Source: Sacramento Valley High-Technology Crimes Task Force.



[End of table]



According to its annual report for calendar year 2001, the Sacramento 

Valley High-Technology Crimes Task Force investigated 153 cases 

involving identity theft. Examples of these cases included the 

following:



* Detectives were called to the Sacramento International Airport to 

investigate a suspect who used stolen credit card information to 

purchase tickets for two other suspects. The investigation revealed 24 

other victims whose credit cards had been stolen by one of the suspects 

from his place of employment.



* A suspect attempted to purchase items at a store using a manufactured 

fraudulent check. After being arrested, the suspect identified herself 

using another person’s identity and was booked into jail using that 

name. However, an investigation determined the suspect’s true identity 

and that she had written at least seven other fraudulent checks in the 

Sacramento area.



* A suspect used a victim’s identity to open an account at a jewelry 

store and charge several items. Also, the suspect opened several other 

accounts in the victim’s name and made purchases (some over the 

Internet) using these accounts. Further, the investigation found 

numerous names, credit information, SSNs, and driver’s licenses--and 

documents with Internet Web sites, passwords, and personal 

identification numbers--indicating that the suspect had opened accounts 

using the personal information of the victims.



Florida: Statewide Initiative to Investigate and Prosecute Identity 

Theft Cases:



Identity theft-related enforcement efforts in Florida are being led by 

the Florida Attorney General’s Office of Statewide Prosecution and the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In 2001, these agencies 

partnered to create a statewide task force initiative to target 

perpetrators of identity fraud. The initiative--called Operation LEGIT 

(law enforcement getting identity thieves)--has special agents and 

other personnel assigned from various regional offices of the Florida 

Department of Law Enforcement. Other task force participants can 

include local and federal law enforcement agencies, as indicated in the 

following examples of cases:[Footnote 16]



* For more than 12 years, a Florida suspect assumed and lived under the 

identity of a California victim, who had lost his wallet (with his 

driver’s license and other personal identification information) while 

vacationing in Daytona Beach in 1987. Since that time, the suspect had 

purchased and sold homes, opened bank accounts, obtained credit, 

established utility and phone service, and been arrested on at least 

three separate occasions. Based on a Florida warrant, the victim was 

wrongly arrested in California and held in jail for more than a week. 

Also, the victim has had civil judgments levied against him. The 

investigation that led to the suspect’s arrest was initiated in May 

2001 and was conducted by the Hernando County (Florida) Sheriff’s 

Office, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Office of 

Statewide Prosecution, and SSA/OIG.



* In July 2001, six suspects were charged with racketeering and 

multiple counts of identity theft that affected victims throughout 

Florida. The ringleader orchestrated the scheme from a Florida prison 

(Gulf County Correctional Facility), where he was serving a 9-year 

sentence for his involvement in a similar investigation that concluded 

in 1998, with victims throughout Florida and Georgia. Using the inmate 

telephone system and the U.S. mail service, the ringleader obtained 

account and identity information of unsuspecting consumers. Accomplices 

used the compromised identities to commit credit card fraud, purchase 

vehicles, open fraudulent checking accounts, and apply for instant 

loans at furniture stores and other businesses across Florida. The 

organized scheme netted the ring more than $200,000 in stolen property. 

This case was investigated by the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement, the Office of Statewide Prosecution, and SSA/OIG.



* In October 2001, six suspects were arrested for fraudulently 

obtaining nearly $300,000 in merchandise, after assuming the identities 

of 18 individuals from around the country. An employee of a children’s 

clinic in Orlando obtained the SSNs and other identifying information 

of the 18 individuals, who had participated in a medical study 

concerning cystic fibrosis and whose children suffer from the disease. 

The employee passed the information to another person, who created 

false birth certificates and other documents that were used to obtain 

identity cards in the names of the victims through offices of the 

Florida Department of Motor Vehicles. The suspects used the false 

identities to obtain instant credit at electronic and furniture stores 

in Orange and Seminole Counties in Florida. The suspects purchased big-

screen televisions, computers, and other high-cost items until the 

victims’ credit lines were exhausted. The purchased items were later 

sold on the streets of Orlando (Florida) and Chicago (Illinois) for 

half their retail value, with the proceeds divided by the suspects. The 

investigation was conducted by the Orlando Police Department, the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the Office of Statewide 

Prosecution.



* In February 2002, a former resident of Daytona Beach was charged with 

obtaining personal identifying information (names, addresses, and SSNs) 

on various individuals and using the information to fraudulently 

purchase more than $35,000 worth of merchandise throughout east-central 

Florida. The suspect obtained the information from a Web site used 

legitimately by a variety of businesses and individuals for the purpose 

of finding and tracking others. As of February 2002, the then-ongoing 

investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revealed 

that the suspect had compromised the identities of victims in 12 

states.



Identity Theft Subcommittee Formed to Have Coordination and Education 

Role:



In early 1999, following passage of the federal Identity Theft Act in 

1998, the U.S. Attorney General’s Council on White Collar Crime 

established the Subcommittee on Identity Theft to foster coordination 

of investigative and prosecutorial strategies and promote consumer 

education programs. Subcommittee leadership is vested in the Fraud 

Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and 

membership includes various federal law enforcement and regulatory 

agencies, as well as state and local representation through the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association 

of Attorneys General, and the National District Attorneys Association. 

Appendix III lists the membership of the subcommittee.



In response to our inquiries, the Chairman of the subcommittee said 

that, although there is no written charter or mission statement, the 

role and activities of the subcommittee are substantially as follows:



* Initially, to promote awareness and use of the federal Identity Theft 

Act, the subcommittee prepared guidance memorandums for field 

distribution to law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Also, the 

subcommittee helped to plan or support various identity theft-related 

educational presentations and workshops, with participants from the 

public and private sectors.:



* Because so much of identity theft is a local matter, it was 

imperative that the subcommittee’s membership include state and local 

representatives. Participation by the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police gives the subcommittee a channel to thousands of local 

law enforcement entities. A continuing priority of the subcommittee is 

to help educate local police departments about the critical first step 

of taking reports from victims of identity theft crime.:



* Furthermore, the subcommittee continually promotes the availability 

of FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network as a tool for federal, state, and 

local law enforcement agencies to use.:



The subcommittee Chairman also noted that, since the terrorist 

incidents of September 11, 2001, there has been more of a focus on 

prevention. For example, the American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators attended a recent subcommittee meeting to discuss ways 

to protect against counterfeit or fake driver’s licenses.



To obtain a broader understanding of the subcommittee’s role, as well 

as ways to potentially enhance that role, we contacted the designated 

individuals who, respectively, represented six member organizations--

FBI, National District Attorneys Association, Postal Inspection 

Service, Secret Service, Sentencing Commission, and SSA/OIG. Generally, 

the representatives commented that the subcommittee has been helpful in 

combating identity theft and has been functioning well, particularly 

considering the fact that membership is a collateral duty for each 

representative. One member--representing the National District 

Attorneys Association--suggested that the subcommittee’s role could be 

enhanced by having a formal charter or mission statement detailing each 

participant’s role. However, the FBI and Secret Service representatives 

said that the informality of the subcommittee promotes member 

participation and also commented that additional directives could be 

counterproductive.



Opportunities for Law Enforcement to Use FTC Data to Aid in 

Investigations of Identity Theft:



Since its establishment in 1999, FTC’s Identity Theft Data 

Clearinghouse has been used for reporting statistical and demographic 

information about victims and perpetrators. While not immediate, the 

value of the Clearinghouse database as a law enforcement tool has been 

growing but has not reached its full potential. In conducting 

investigations, for example, relatively few law enforcement agencies 

have used FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network, which provides computer 

access to the Clearinghouse database. Further, centralized analysis of 

database information to generate investigative leads and referrals has 

been limited. Law enforcement’s limited use of the Consumer Sentinel 

Network and the Clearinghouse database may be due to various reasons, 

including the relatively short operating history of the database. To 

promote greater awareness and use of the Network and the Clearinghouse 

database, FTC and Secret Service outreach efforts include conducting 

regional law enforcement training seminars and developing a training 

video for distribution to local law enforcement agencies across the 

nation.



FTC Established the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse in 1999:



The federal Identity Theft Act of 1998 required FTC to “log and 

acknowledge the receipt of complaints by individuals who certify that 

they have a reasonable belief” that one or more of their means of 

identification have been assumed, stolen, or otherwise unlawfully 

acquired. In response to this requirement, in November 1999, FTC 

established the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse to gather information 

from any consumer who wishes to file a complaint or pose an inquiry 

concerning identity theft. Consumers can call a toll-free telephone 

number (1-877-ID-THEFT) to report identity theft. Information from 

complainants is accumulated in a central database (the Identity Theft 

Data Clearinghouse) for use as an aid in law enforcement and prevention 

of identity theft. From its establishment in November 1999 through 

September 2001, the Clearinghouse received a total of 94,100 complaints 

from identity theft victims. This total includes 16,784 complaints 

transferred to the FTC from the SSA/OIG. In the first month of 

operation, the Clearinghouse answered an average of 445 calls per week. 

By March 2001, the average number of calls had increased to over 2,000 

per week. In December 2001, the weekly average was about 3,000 answered 

calls.



From its inception, the Clearinghouse database has been used to report 

statistical and demographic information about victims and perpetrators. 

For example, regarding identity theft complaints received in calendar 

year 2001, an FTC official testifying at a March 2002 congressional 

hearing summarized database information partly as follows:[Footnote 17]



“The Clearinghouse database has been in operation for more than two 

years. … While not comprehensive, information from the database can 

reveal information about the nature of identity theft activity. For 

example, the data show that California has the greatest overall number 

of victims in the FTC’s database, followed by New York, Texas, Florida, 

and Illinois. On a per capita basis, per 100,000 citizens, the District 

of Columbia ranks first, followed by California, Nevada, Maryland and 

New York. The cities with the highest numbers of victims reporting to 

the database are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and Miami.



“Eighty-eight percent of victims reporting to the FTC provide their 

age. The largest number of these victims (28%) were in their thirties. 

The next largest group includes consumers from age eighteen to twenty-

nine (26%), followed by consumers in their forties (22%). Consumers in 

their fifties comprised 13%, and those age 60 and over comprised 9%. 

Minors under 18 years of age comprised 2% of victims. …:



“Thirty-five percent of the victims had not yet notified any credit 

bureau at the time they contacted the FTC; 46% had not yet notified any 

of the financial institutions involved. Fifty-four percent of the 

victims had not yet notified their local police department of the 

identity theft. By advising the callers to take these critical steps, 

we enable many victims to get through the recovery process more 

efficiently and effectively.”



Centralized Analysis of Clearinghouse Data to Generate Investigative 

Leads and Referrals is Increasing:



In addition to providing a basis for reporting statistical and 

demographic information about identity theft victims and perpetrators, 

another primary purpose of the Clearinghouse database is to support law 

enforcement. Since May 2001, one Secret Service special agent, working 

with an FTC attorney, an investigator, and a paralegal, has been 

involved in centrally analyzing Clearinghouse data to generate 

investigative leads and referrals. Specifically, according to FTC 

staff:



* The team uses intelligence software to analyze Clearinghouse data to 

generate investigative leads.:



* These leads are then further developed using criminal investigative 

resources provided by the Secret Service and research and analytical 

tools provided by the FTC.



* When the case leads have been comprehensively developed, they are 

referred to federal, state, or local law enforcement officers in the 

field. These officers participate in financial, high-tech, or economic 

crimes task forces and are well equipped to handle the cases.



The pace of developing and sending out investigative leads has picked 

up since FTC and the Secret Service jointly initiated their efforts in 

May 2001. For instance, 10 investigative referrals were made to 

regional law enforcement during the last 6 months of calendar year 

2001, whereas 19 referrals were made in the first 5 months of 2002. One 

of the 29 referrals involved 10 individuals with the same address. In 

response to our inquiries in May 2002, Secret Service officials said 

that the 29 referrals were still being worked and, thus, the results or 

outcomes were yet to be determined.



Relatively Few Law Enforcement Agencies Use the Consumer Sentinel 

Network to Access FTC’s Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse:



In addition to receiving referrals based on centralized analysis of 

Clearinghouse data, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies 

nationwide can use desktop computers to access Clearinghouse data to 

further support ongoing cases or develop new leads. Specifically, 

through FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network--which is a secure, encrypted 

Web site--law enforcement agencies can access Clearinghouse data and 

use search tools tailored for identity theft investigations. For 

instance, an investigator may scan consumer complaints matching certain 

criteria to determine if there is a larger pattern of criminal 

activity. FTC does not charge a fee for use of the Consumer Sentinel 

Network. However, each law enforcement agency must enter into a 

confidentiality agreement (pledging to abide by applicable 

confidentiality rules) with FTC.



As of May 24, 2002, a total of 46 federal agencies had signed user 

agreements with FTC, facilitating access to Identity Theft Data 

Clearinghouse information via the Consumer Sentinel Network. These 

agencies include the FBI, Secret Service, Postal Inspection Service, 

SSA/OIG, and some U. S. Attorney Offices. Further, relatively few of 

the nation’s over 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies have 

signed agreements with FTC to use the Consumer Sentinel Network to 

access the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse. Specifically, as of May 

24, 2002, a total of 306 state and local law enforcement agencies had 

entered into such agreements. Of this total, the number of users varied 

from 1 law enforcement agency in each of 5 states (Delaware, Hawaii, 

Idaho, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) and 2 agencies in each of 8 other 

states (Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, 

South Dakota, and Wyoming) to 17 agencies in Texas and 45 agencies in 

California. Even at the high end of this range, the extent of access is 

not comprehensive. For example:



* In Texas, the Houston Police Department and the Harris County 

Sheriff’s Office--jurisdictions that encompass about 22 percent of the 

state’s population--are not users of the Consumer Sentinel Network. As 

stated previously, in reference to number of identity theft victims, 

Houston is among the top five cities nationally. Overall, less than 1 

percent of the state’s law enforcement agencies have entered into 

confidentiality agreements with FTC.



* Although California has the largest number of users (45 agencies), 

the list of subscribers does not include the city police departments in 

Los Angeles, Sacramento, or San Jose. As mentioned previously, over 

8,000 cases of identity theft were reported to the Los Angeles Police 

Department in calendar year 2001.

:

According to FTC staff, the number of Consumer Sentinel member agencies 

continually increases, particularly in response to outreach activities 

such as regional law enforcement training. Appendix IV gives a full 

listing of the 352 agencies that had entered into user agreements with 

FTC, as of May 24, 2002.



FTC staff provided us query statistics showing external law enforcement 

usage of the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Identity Theft Data 

Clearinghouse for January 2001 through March 2002. During this 15-month 

period, the number of external law enforcement queries about identity 

theft complaints totaled 7,946--an average of about 530 per month--and 

ranged from 378 in December 2001 to 783 in January 2002. FTC staff 

noted that these usage statistics do not reflect centralized analysis 

of identity theft complaint data, conducted jointly by the Secret 

Service and FTC.



Reasons for Limited Law Enforcement Use of Consumer Sentinel Network 

and Clearinghouse Database:



Various reasons may explain law enforcement’s relatively limited use of 

the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse 

database. Department of Justice officials said, for instance, that many 

state and local agencies may have an insufficient number of computers 

and support personnel, in addition to being challenged by competing 

priorities. Also, FTC staff and Secret Service officials noted that the 

availability of the Clearinghouse database as an aid for law 

enforcement agencies is still relatively new. As such, some potential 

users are unaware of this investigative resource, despite ongoing 

outreach efforts.



Further, regarding usefulness of database information for law 

enforcement purposes, we asked whether any examples of federal, state, 

or local success stories had been presented or discussed at any of the 

monthly meetings of the Attorney General’s Identity Theft Subcommittee. 

In response, the head of the subcommittee told us that none of the 

meetings had included such examples--neither examples involving field 

agencies that used the Consumer Sentinel Network to develop cases nor 

examples involving the results of investigative leads or referrals that 

were based on centralized analysis of Clearinghouse data.



One state’s deputy attorney general, in replying to our inquiry about 

the usefulness of the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Clearinghouse 

database, said that, as a practical matter, a local investigator with 

numerous outstanding cases on his or her desk will not be using the FTC 

system to obtain more cases. Rather, this state official suggested, for 

example, that FTC could use the system to generate periodic reports to 

alert law enforcement of specific problems within their respective 

jurisdictions and facilitate the coordination of investigative 

resources for the maximum benefit.



FTC staff acknowledged that Sentinel members appear to use the 

Clearinghouse database to bolster the cases they have under 

investigation more often than to initiate new cases. However, the FTC 

staff told us that they are continuously looking for ways to make the 

Clearinghouse database more efficient and user friendly. The staff 

noted, for example, that FTC has established an e-mail address to take 

requests for specific searches from Sentinel members and, thereby, FTC 

can use its internal search tools to query the Clearinghouse database 

and provide more comprehensive results to requesters. Also, the staff 

noted that FTC expects to implement an “alert” function before the end 

of fiscal year 2002. According to the staff:



* The alert function will enable a Clearinghouse user (e.g., police 

officer) to flag or annotate one or more particular complaints relating 

to an investigation that the user is conducting. If and when another 

user executes a query that retrieves one of the flagged complaints, 

this second user will get a pop-up message box asking him or her to 

contact the first user before proceeding.:



* Thus, two police officers, who likely are from different 

jurisdictions but are looking at the same complaint records, can avoid 

duplicating investigatory efforts or inadvertently impeding each 

other’s investigations.



Also, the staff noted that FTC has plans to implement (by the end of 

fiscal year 2002) a report listing the suspect locations most 

frequently reported in the database.[Footnote 18] Further, in response 

to requests from Sentinel members, the FTC will soon begin testing a 

program to provide Sentinel members access to electronic batches of 

Clearinghouse data--for example, all complaint information reported by 

victims in a given city during a specified period of time. According to 

FTC staff, Sentinel members will be able to run the batched data 

through their own intelligence or link analysis software and also 

combine the data with their own investigative information for more 

impact.



Moreover, FTC staff said that additional steps are being taken to 

increase law enforcement agencies’ awareness and use of the Consumer 

Sentinel Network and the Clearinghouse database. The staff noted, for 

example, that training sessions for law enforcement agencies were 

conducted in Washington, D.C., in March 2002, in Des Moines, Iowa, and 

Chicago, Illinois, in May 2002, and that additional sessions are 

planned for San Francisco, California, in June 2002, and for Dallas, 

Texas, in August 2002. Also, as mentioned previously, the Secret 

Service is developing a police training video with the cooperation of 

the FTC, Department of Justice, and the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police, which is anticipated to be completed by September 30, 

2002. According to FTC staff and Secret Service officials, the training 

video will briefly discuss the availability of the Consumer Sentinel 

Network and the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse, in addition to 

emphasizing the importance of police reports in identity theft cases.



These planned initiatives appear to be steps in the right direction. If 

implemented effectively, the initiatives should help to ensure that 

more law enforcement agencies are aware of existing data that can be 

used to combat identity theft. Nonetheless, concerted and continued 

outreach efforts will be needed to promote broad awareness and use of 

the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Clearinghouse database by all 

levels of law enforcement.



SSA/OIG Actions to Resolve SSN Misuse and Other Identity Theft-Related 

Allegations:



As mentioned previously, SSA/OIG’s fraud hotline annually receives tens 

of thousands of allegations, most of which involve either (1) SSN 

misuse or (2) program fraud with SSN misuse potential. In these 2 

categories, SSA/OIG received approximately 62,000 allegations in fiscal 

year 1999, and the agency opened investigative cases on 4,636 (about 7 

percent) of these allegations. About three in four of the investigative 

cases involved program fraud-related allegations. Generally, SSA/OIG 

concentrates its investigative resources on this category of 

allegations because the protection of Social Security trust funds is a 

priority. SSA/OIG statistics for investigative cases opened in fiscal 

year 1999 indicate that a total of 1,347 cases had resulted in criminal 

convictions or other judicial actions, as of April 30, 2002. During our 

review, the SSA Inspector General told us that his office does not have 

enough investigators to address all of the SSN misuse allegations 

received on the agency’s fraud hotline. However, FTC staff noted that, 

starting in February 2001, FTC began to routinely upload information 

from SSA/OIG’s fraud hotline about these allegations into FTC’s 

Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse, thereby making the information 

available to law enforcement agencies via the Consumer Sentinel 

Network.



SSA/OIG Concentrates Its Investigative Resources on Allegations of 

Program Fraud with SSN Misuse Potential:



Within the categories of SSN misuse and program fraud with SSN misuse 

potential, SSA/OIG received a total of 62,376 allegations in fiscal 

year 1999, a greater number (83,721) in fiscal year 2000, and an even 

higher number (104,103) in fiscal year 2001. According to SSA/OIG 

officials, allegations are reviewed by supervisory personnel to 

determine which should be further pursued. The review criteria, among 

others, include considerations of the credibility of the alleged 

information, the actual or potential dollar-loss amounts involved, the 

severity of other effects on SSA programs, and the prosecutive merits 

of the allegation, as well as considerations of current workloads and 

the availability of investigative resources.



Most allegations of identity theft made to SSA/OIG do not result in 

criminal investigations being opened. Of the two categories of 

allegations, however, SSA/OIG generally concentrates its investigative 

resources on allegations of program fraud with SSN misuse potential 

because the protection of Social Security trust funds is a priority. In 

fiscal year 1999, for example, SSA/OIG opened investigative cases on 12 

percent of the allegations categorized as program fraud with SSN misuse 

potential and 3 percent of the allegations categorized as SSN misuse 

(see table 5). In other words, although the total numbers of 

allegations received in each category were similar, program fraud-

related allegations were about four times more likely to result in 

investigative cases being opened.



Table 5: Allegations Received by SSA/OIG and Investigative Cases 

Opened, Fiscal Year 1999:



Allegation type: SSN misuse; Number of

allegations received: 30,116; Number of investigative

cases opened: 868; Percentage of: 3.



Allegation type: Program fraud with SSN misuse potential; Number of

allegations received: 32,260; Number of investigative

cases opened: 3,768; Percentage of: 12.



Allegation type: Total; Number of

allegations received: 62,376; Number of investigative

cases opened: 4,636; Percentage of: 7.



Source: SSA/OIG data.



[End of table]



Investigations of Allegations Have Produced Convictions and Other 

Judicial Actions:



In response to our inquiry regarding the results of SSA/OIG criminal 

investigations, the agency provided us statistics for applicable cases 

opened in fiscal year 1999 that resulted in criminal or other judicial 

actions. As table 6 shows, as of April 30, 2002, SSN misuse cases (768) 

accounted for 57 percent of the 1,347 investigations involving SSN 

misuse or program fraud with SSN misuse potential that were opened in 

fiscal year 1999 and resulted in criminal or other judicial actions.:



Table 6: Results, as of April 30, 2002, of SSA/OIG Investigations 

Opened in Fiscal Year 1999:



Results category: Individual convicted and sentenced; Description of 

category: These cases involved accused individuals who were tried, 

found guilty, and sentenced.; [Empty]; Number of investigations 

resulting in criminal or other judicial actions: SSN misuse: 338; 

Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other judicial 

actions: Program fraud with SSN misuse

potential: 339; Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other 

judicial actions: Total: 677; [Empty]; Percentage of total number: 50.



Results category: Alien apprehended and deported; Description of 

category: These cases involved the taking into custody of an illegal 

alien or undocumented immigrant, who used the SSN of another person.; 

[Empty]; Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other 

judicial actions: SSN misuse: 423; Number of investigations resulting 

in criminal or other judicial actions: Program fraud

with SSN misuse potential: 31; Number of investigations resulting in 
criminal or 

other judicial actions: Total: 454; [Empty]; Percentage of total 
number: 34.



Results category: Fugitive felon apprehended; Description of category: 

These cases involved individuals who were receiving Social Security 

benefits and who were also the subjects of outstanding warrants. SSA/

OIG coordinated with the U.S. Marshals Service or state or local law 

enforcement to apprehend the fugitive.; [Empty]; Number of 

investigations resulting in criminal or other judicial actions: SSN 

misuse: 0; Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other 

judicial actions: Program fraud with SSN misuse

potential: 137; Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other 

judicial actions: Total: 137; [Empty]; Percentage of total number: 10.



Results category: First-time offender handled by pretrial diversion 

program; Description of category: These cases involved first-time 

offenders who were placed on probation for 12 to 18 months.; [Empty]; 

Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other judicial 

actions: SSN misuse: 7; Number of investigations resulting in criminal 

or other judicial actions: Program fraud

with SSN misuse potential: 72; Number of investigations resulting in 
criminal 

or other judicial actions: Total: 79; [Empty]; Percentage of total 
number: 6.



Results category: Total; Description of category: [Empty]; [Empty]; 

Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other judicial 

actions: SSN misuse: 768; Number of investigations resulting in 

criminal or other judicial actions: Program fraud

with SSN misuse potential: 579; Number of investigations resulting in 
criminal 

or other judicial actions: Total: 1,347; [Empty]; Percentage of total 
number: 

100.



Results category: Percentage of total; Description of category: 

[Empty]; [Empty]; Number of investigations resulting in criminal or 

other judicial actions: SSN misuse: 57; Number of investigations 

resulting in criminal or other judicial actions: Program fraud

with SSN misuse

potential: 43; Number of investigations resulting in criminal or other 

judicial actions: Total: 100; [Empty]; Percentage of total number: 

[Empty].



Note: Data represent criminal investigations that were opened in fiscal 

year 1999 by SSA/OIG and that were closed with a criminal or other 

judicial actions as of April 30, 2002. Other criminal investigations 

may have resulted in civil monetary penalties or administrative action 

or may have been closed with no action.



Source: SSA/OIG data.



[End of table]



SSA/OIG officials said that investigations of SSN misuse allegations 

produce convictions or other criminal results because SSN misuse 

generally is tied to other white-collar or financial crimes that can 

have identity theft-related elements. On the other hand, the officials 

said that many investigations of program fraud cases may be closed with 

administrative actions, which can include suspension of benefit 

payments.



SSA/OIG Allegation Information Is Now Being Added to FTC’s Database:



In recent years, the number of SSN misuse allegations received by the 

SSA/OIG has grown faster than the number of program fraud-related 

allegations. That is, SSN misuse allegations constitute a growing 

proportion of these two categories of allegations, increasing from 48 

percent in fiscal year 1999, to 56 percent in fiscal year 2000, and to 

63 percent in fiscal year 2001. During our review, the SSA Inspector 

General told us that, given limited resources and competing priorities, 

his office investigates relatively few allegations of SSN misuse. 

Consequently, the Inspector General said that many credible allegations 

of identity theft that have the potential to produce criminal 

convictions or other judicial actions are not addressed.



Starting in February 2001, FTC began routinely uploading SSA/OIG 

information about SSN misuse allegations into FTC’s Identity Theft Data 

Clearinghouse. This enhancement of the Clearinghouse database makes the 

SSA/OIG allegation information available to law enforcement agencies 

via the Consumer Sentinel Network. However, as discussed previously, 

relatively few law enforcement agencies use the Network, and 

centralized analysis of Clearinghouse data to generate investigative 

leads and referrals has been limited.



Conclusions:



Comprehensive results--such as number of prosecutions and convictions-

-under the federal Identity Theft Act and relevant state statutes are 

not available. However, examples of actual cases illustrate that 

identity theft often is a component of other white-collar or financial 

crimes, and these cases often have fact-pattern elements involving more 

than one jurisdiction. Moreover, the prevalence of identity theft and 

the frequently multi-or cross-jurisdictional nature of such crimes 

underscore the importance of leveraging available resources and 

promoting cooperation or coordination among all levels of law 

enforcement.



Our review indicates that there are opportunities for law enforcement 

to make greater use of existing data to combat identity theft. In 

particular, the Consumer Sentinel Network potentially can provide all 

law enforcement agencies across the nation with access to FTC’s 

Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse database to support ongoing 

investigations. In addition to complaint information reported by 

identity theft victims directly to FTC, the Clearinghouse database now 

routinely incorporates identity theft-related information received by 

SSA/OIG. However, despite outreach efforts to date, relatively few 

state and local law enforcement agencies have signed Consumer Sentinel 

confidentiality agreements with FTC. Also, although the number is 

increasing, few investigative leads and referrals have been generated 

by centralized analysis of database information. Given the growing 

prevalence of identity theft, continued and concerted emphasis is 

warranted regarding the availability and use of the Consumer Sentinel 

Network and the Clearinghouse database as law enforcement tools.



Recommendation for Executive Action:



We recommend that the Attorney General have the Identity Theft 

Subcommittee promote greater awareness and use of the Consumer Sentinel 

Network and the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse by all levels of law 

enforcement--federal, state, and local.



Agency Comments:



On June 5, 2002, we provided a draft of this report for comment to the 

Departments of Justice and the Treasury, FTC, and SSA. The Department 

of Justice generally agreed with the substance of the report and 

recommendation that the Identity Theft Subcommittee promote greater 

awareness and use of the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Identity 

Theft Data Clearinghouse by all levels of law enforcement. Further, 

Justice noted several actions that it has taken or will take to 

directly address the recommendation. These actions include, for 

example, regional training seminars cosponsored by Justice, FTC, and 

the Secret Service that have specific components about the Consumer 

Sentinel and the identity theft database. Justice noted that five 

training seminars have been or are planned for this fiscal year and 

that additional seminars are being considered for fiscal year 2003. 

Also, Justice said that the state and local law enforcement 

representatives on the Identity Theft Subcommittee will be consulted 

regarding additional mechanisms for informing police departments and 

sheriffs’ offices about the Consumer Sentinel. Further, Justice cited 

its efforts to inform the public about identity theft and ensure that 

courts are meting out appropriate criminal sanctions. The full text of 

Justice’s comments is reprinted in appendix VI.



The Secret Service, a component agency of the Department of the 

Treasury, said that the draft report accurately presented the agency’s 

positions. Also, the Secret Service commented that the agency’s liaison 

to the FTC attended 33 speaking engagements from May 2001 to May 2002 

to promote the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse and that a similar 

schedule is anticipated for the next 12 months. Furthermore, the Secret 

Service noted that the FTC--in conjunction with the Secret Service 

liaison, Justice, and the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police--plans to sponsor at least six training seminars in fiscal year 

2003.



Justice and the Secret Service also provided various technical comments 

and clarifications, which have been incorporated in this report where 

appropriate. Similarly, the FTC and SSA provided technical comments and 

clarifications, which have been incorporated where appropriate.



In sum, we believe that the ongoing and planned efforts cited by the 

Department of Justice and the Secret Service are responsive to the 

recommendation that we make in this report.



As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 

after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to interested 

congressional committees and subcommittees; the Attorney General; the 

Secretary of the Treasury; the Chief Postal Inspector, U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service; the Commissioner, SSA; and the Chairman, FTC. We 

will also make copies available to others on request.



If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Danny R. Burton at (214) 777-5600. 

Other key contributors are acknowledged in appendix VII.



Sincerely yours,



Richard M. Stana:



Director, Justice Issues:



Signed by Richard M. Stana:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Objectives:



In response to a request from Representative Sam Johnson, we developed 

information on the following topics:



* Law enforcement results (such as examples of prosecutions and 

convictions) under the federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence 

Act of 1998 (the “Identity Theft Act”).



* Law enforcement results under state statutes that, similar to the 

federal act, provide state and local law enforcement officials with the 

tools to prosecute and convict identity theft criminals.



* The means used to promote cooperation or coordination among federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies in addressing identity theft 

crimes that span multiple jurisdictions.



* Actions taken by the Social Security Administration’s Office of the 

Inspector General (SSA/OIG) to resolve Social Security number (SSN) 

misuse and other identity theft-related allegations received during 

fiscal year 1999.



Scope and Methodology:



The following sections discuss the scope and methodology of our work in 

addressing the respective topics.



Law Enforcement Results under the Federal Statute:



To determine what have been the law enforcement results under the 

federal Identity Theft Act,[Footnote 19] we contacted various federal 

agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting this type of 

crime. Specifically, we interviewed responsible officials and reviewed 

documentation obtained from the Department of Justice’s Criminal 

Division, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Postal Inspection Service, 

the Secret Service, and SSA/OIG. We reviewed available statistics on 

number of investigations and prosecutions and obtained examples of 

actual investigations and prosecutions under the federal statute.



Also, we conducted a literature search to identify studies, reports, or 

other products--including congressional testimony statements--giving 

examples of cases or other results under the federal Identity Theft 

Act. In February 2002, we conducted a search of the LexisNexis 

database.[Footnote 20] Our search was designed to retrieve only those 

identity theft cases that specifically mentioned the federal statute--

that is, cases that cited 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). We summarized the 

results of selected cases prosecuted under this statute. Our summary 

(see app. II) is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of all 

federal prosecutions under the 1998 federal statute.



Law Enforcement Results under State Statutes:



We contacted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine which 

states had enacted specific laws related to identity theft. To 

determine the availability of any national overview information 

regarding law enforcement results under the states’ identity theft 

laws, we reviewed the offense categories included in the FBI’s Uniform 

Crime Reporting (UCR) Program,[Footnote 21] and we contacted the 

National Association of Attorneys General, the National District 

Attorneys Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police.



For more detailed inquiries, we selected 10 states--Arizona, 

California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. We judgmentally selected these 

states on the basis of having the highest incidences of reported 

identity theft or the longest-standing applicable statutes. 

Specifically, with one exception (New York), we selected each state 

that had more than 2,500 complaints reported to FTC during November 

1999 through September 2001 (see table 8). Also, some of the first 

states to enact identity theft laws were Arizona (1996), California 

(1997), and Wisconsin (1997). As indicated in table 7, the 10 states we 

selected represent about 51 percent of the total number of complaints 

received by the FTC during November 1999 through September 2001.



Table 7: Number of Identity Theft Complaints Received by FTC (Nov. 1999 

through Sept. 2001) for Selected States:



States with more than 2,500 complaints[A]:



State: California; Number 

ofcomplaints: 16,147; 

Percentage: 17.2.



State: Texas; Number of

complaints: 6,775; 

Percentage: 7.2.



State: Florida; Number of

complaints: 6,309; 

Percentage: 6.7.



State: Illinois; Number of

complaints: 4,145; 

Percentage: 4.4.



State: Michigan; Number of

complaints: 3,038; 

Percentage: 3.2.



State: Pennsylvania; 

Number of

complaints: 2,979; 

Percentage: 3.2.



State: New Jersey; Number 

of

complaints: 2,827; 

Percentage: 3.0.



State: Georgia; Number of

complaints: 2,770; 

Percentage: 2.9.



States with longest-standing statutes [B]: 



State: Arizona; Number of

complaints: 2,049; Percentage: 2.2.



State: California 

(included above); Number of

complaints: [Empty]; Percentage: [Empty].



State: Wisconsin; Number 

of complaints: 1,016; Percentage: 1.1.



State: Subtotal; Number of

complaints: 48,055; Percentage: 51.1.



State: Other states and 

the District of Columbia; Number of

complaints: 38,715; Percentage: 41.1.



State: Other locations or 

not reported[C]; Number of

complaints: 7,330; Percentage: 7.8.



State: Total; Number of

complaints: 94,100; Percentage: 100.0.



[A] The only other state with more than 2,500 complaints was New York, 

which accounted for 8,219 complaints during November 1999 through 

September 2001. However, given the terrorist events of September 11, 

2001, and the ongoing recovery efforts, we did not include New York in 

our case study of selected states. In addition, at the time we 

initiated our review, New York did not have a specific statute making 

identity theft a crime.



[B] Mississippi possibly enacted the nation’s first identity theft 

statute (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-85), even though it was titled as a 

“false pretenses” statute rather than specifically labeled as an 

“identity theft” statute. Originally enacted in 1993, the statute was 

amended in 1998 to include additional identifiers and increase 

punishment from a misdemeanor to a felony.



[C] This category includes complaints from (1) victims who did not 

report their location and (2) victims who reported from other 

locations, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 

Canada.



Source: FTC Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse. Also, note “b” is based 

on our analysis of the Mississippi statute and a follow-up discussion 

with an official in the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office.



[End of table]



In each of the 10 selected states, we attempted to contact officials in 

the state’s attorney general’s office and in at least one local 

jurisdiction (e.g, a county district attorney’s office). We developed a 

structured data collection instrument and distributed it to each of 

these officials. The instrument was used to obtain information about 

the respective state’s specific identity theft statute, implementation 

activities, relevant investigative and prosecutorial units, reports or 

records of statistical results, examples of actual cases, and 

observations on the usefulness or effectiveness of the statute. With 

the exception of Arizona, the attorney general’s office in each of the 

10 selected states responded to our inquiries. Also, at least one local 

official in each of the 10 states except Georgia responded to our 

inquiries. Given the limited distribution of our data collection 

instrument, the observations of the respondents cannot be viewed as 

being representative of the entire law enforcement community in the 

respective state. Table 8 lists the agencies we contacted in each of 

the 10 selected states.



Table 8: State and Local Agencies Contacted in 10 States:



State: Arizona; State agency: Assistant Attorney General, Attorney 

General’s Office[A]; Local agency: Special Assistant Law Enforcement 

Liaison, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office; Sergeant, Document Crimes 

Detail, Phoenix Police Department.



State: California; State agency: Deputy Attorneys General (2), Special 

Crimes Unit, Attorney General’s Office; Local agency: Deputy District 

Attorney, High Technology Crimes Unit,; Los Angeles County District 

Attorney’s Office; Detective Supervisor, Identity Theft & Credit Card 

Squad, Los Angeles Police Department,; Principal Criminal Attorney, 

Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office.



State: Florida; State agency: Special Counsel, Office of Statewide 

Prosecution, Florida Department of Legal Affairs; Local agency: 

Attorney, Dade County State Prosecutor’s Office.



State: Georgia; State agency: Assistant Attorney General, Attorney 

General’s Office; Local agency: Deputy District Attorney, Fulton County 

District Attorney’s Office[A].



State: Illinois; State agency: Supervisor, Attorney General - Cook 

County State’s Attorney’s Office[B]; Local agency: [Empty].



State: Michigan; State agency: Assistant Attorney General, Chief of 

High Tech Crime Unit, Attorney General’s Office; Local agency: Deputy 

Prosecutor, Warrants & Investigations Unit, Oakland County Office of 

the Prosecuting Attorney.



State: New Jersey; State agency: Deputy Attorney General, Attorney 

General’s Office; Local agency: Sergeant, Atlantic County Prosecutor’s 

Office.



State: Pennsylvania; State agency: Chief Deputy Attorney General, 

Attorney General’s Office; Local agency: Chief Deputy Attorney, 

Economic & Cyber Crime Unit, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.



State: Texas; State agency: Assistant Attorney General, Internet 

Bureau, Attorney General’s Office; Local agency: Assistant District 

Attorney, Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.



State: Wisconsin; State agency: Special Agent, Wisconsin Department of 

Justice; Local agency: Deputy District Attorney, Dane County District 

Attorney’s Office.



[A] Did not respond to our inquiries.



[B] The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office of the Illinois Attorney 

General’s Office was able to provide both a state and local perspective 

on identity theft enforcement efforts.



Source: GAO summary.



[End of table]



Means Used to Promote Cooperation or Coordination among Federal, State, 

and Local Law Enforcement Agencies in Addressing Identity Theft:



Our literature search and discussions with federal and state law 

enforcement officials indicated that three principal means are used to 

promote cooperation or coordination among all levels of law enforcement 

in addressing identity theft crimes--law enforcement task forces with 

multi-agency participation, the Attorney General’s Identity Theft 

Subcommittee, and FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network and Identity Theft 

Data Clearinghouse database. We obtained examples of task forces 

established by federal (Secret Service) and state (California and 

Florida) leadership, respectively. The scope of our work did not 

include assessing the effectiveness of these task forces.



Regarding the Identity Theft Subcommittee, we interviewed the Chairman-

-a leadership role vested in the Fraud Section of the Department of 

Justice’s Criminal Division--to obtain an overview of the 

subcommittee’s role, membership, activities, and accomplishments. For 

the most part, in studying the subcommittee’s role, we relied on 

testimonial rather than documentary evidence. According to the 

Chairman, there are no minutes of the subcommittee’s monthly meetings 

because the subcommittee is not an “advisory” entity as defined in 

applicable sunshine laws. Also, the Chairman said that the subcommittee 

has not produced any annual reports of its activities.



To obtain a broader understanding of the subcommittee’s role, as well 

as ways to potentially enhance that role, we contacted the designated 

individuals who, respectively, represented six member organizations--

FBI, National District Attorneys Association, Postal Inspection 

Service, Secret Service, Sentencing Commission, and SSA/OIG. Various 

representatives offered suggestions for ways to potentially enhance the 

subcommittee’s role. These suggestions do not necessarily reflect the 

consensus views of either the full subcommittee or the seven 

representatives we contacted.



Also, the structured data collection instrument that we distributed to 

law enforcement officials in the 10 selected states included a question 

about the role, usefulness, and effectiveness of the Identity Theft 

Subcommittee. As previously mentioned, given the limited distribution 

of the data collection instrument, the observations of the respondents 

cannot be viewed as being representative of the entire law enforcement 

community in the respective state.



Regarding the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Identity Theft Data 

Clearinghouse database, we interviewed responsible FTC staff and 

reviewed available documentation, including law enforcement usage 

statistics for January 2001 through March 2002. We reviewed the list of 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that, as of May 24, 

2002, had entered into user agreements with FTC, pledging to abide by 

applicable confidentiality rules when using the Consumer Sentinel 

Network to access the Clearinghouse database.



Regarding usefulness of database information for law enforcement 

purposes, we asked the Identity Theft Subcommittee Chairman for 

examples (if any) of federal, state, or local success stories that had 

been presented or discussed at the subcommittee’s monthly meetings. We 

discussed with FTC staff the extent to which Clearinghouse data have 

been centrally analyzed to generate investigative leads and referrals. 

Further, we inquired about FTC’s plans for making the Clearinghouse 

database more useful for law enforcement purposes.



Also, the structured data collection instrument that we distributed to 

law enforcement officials in the 10 selected states included a question 

about the usefulness of the Consumer Sentinel Network and the 

Clearinghouse database. To reiterate, given the limited distribution of 

the data collection instrument, the observations of the respondents 

cannot be viewed as being representative of the entire law enforcement 

community in the respective state.



SSA/OIG Actions to Resolve SSN Misuse and Other Identity Theft-Related 

Allegations:



To obtain information about actions taken to resolve SSN misuse and 

other identity theft-related allegations, we contacted officials from 

the various components of SSA/OIG, including officials from the Office 

of Investigations, the Office of Executive Operations, as well as the 

Counsel to the Inspector General. We focused primarily on allegations 

received during fiscal year 1999. However, to provide a trend 

perspective and more currency, an official from the SSA/OIG’s Office of 

Executive Operations provided us annual allegation data for fiscal 

years 1998 through 2001.



To determine the criteria used to establish which allegations are 

selected for criminal investigation, we spoke with staff from the 

Office of Investigation’s Allegation Management Division, which 

operates SSA/OIG’s fraud hotline. Also, officials from SSA’s Office of 

Executive Operations provided us statistical information detailing the 

number of criminal investigations that resulted from program fraud-

related allegations and the number that resulted from SSN misuse 

allegations that did not involve SSA programs. Information was also 

provided on how many of these criminal investigations produced a 

criminal result, such as a fugitive felon being apprehended or an 

individual being convicted and sentenced.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Examples of Cases Prosecuted under the Federal Identity 

Theft Act:



This appendix summarizes selected federal cases prosecuted under the 

Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. The relevant 

section of this legislation is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 

1028(a)(7)(“fraud and related activity in connection with 

identification documents and information”). The cases summarized in 

this appendix are not intended to be a comprehensive listing of all 

federal prosecutions under the 1998 federal statute. As mentioned in 

appendix I, we identified these cases by conducting a search of the 

LexisNexis database in February 2002. Our search was designed to 

retrieve only those identity theft cases that specifically mentioned 

the federal statute--that is, cases that cited 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7).



The following summaries of five cases prosecuted in U.S. district 

courts illustrate that identity theft generally is not a stand-alone 

crime. Rather, identity theft typically is a component of one or more 

other white-collar or financial crimes, such as bank fraud, credit card 

or access device fraud, or mail fraud.



Illinois, Northern District, Eastern Division:



In early 2001, a defendant was charged in a six-count indictment with 

bank fraud (counts 1, 2, and 3), possession of a counterfeit check 

(count 4), interstate transportation of a counterfeit check (count 5), 

and use of another person’s SSN with intent to commit a state felony 

(count 6). In May 2001, the defendant pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 6 

pursuant to a written plea agreement, and the remaining counts were 

dismissed. The district court sentenced the defendant to concurrent 46-

month prison terms for offense conduct under the Identity Theft Act, 18 

U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)--using another person’s SSN with intent to commit a 

crime--and under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud). U.S. v. Burks, No. 01-

3313, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 2387 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002).



Michigan, Western District, Southern Division:



This was a consolidated case involving three separate actions, in which 

three plaintiffs each alleged liability against the defendant car 

dealership, whose salesman/employee committed criminal acts. 

Specifically, the salesman/employee wrongly obtained credit reports for 

the plaintiffs, without their consent, and then used the reports to 

secure financing for car sales or leases for applicants with bad credit 

histories. The salesman/employee was convicted on a federal fraud 

criminal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). Also, the plaintiffs 

established liability against the dealership for intentional violation 

of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Benjamin Adams v. Berger Chevrolet, 

Inc., No. 1:00-CV-225, 1:00-CV-226, and 1:00-CV-228, 2001 Dist. Lexis 

6174 (W.D. Mich. May 7, 2001).



North Carolina, Eastern District:



A defendant was charged with stealing mail from residential mailboxes, 

using information from personal checks to create counterfeit checks and 

fraudulent driver’s licenses, and negotiating the counterfeit checks at 

numerous banks in North Carolina using the fraudulent licenses as 

identification. The defendant pled guilty to:



* one count of using false identification documents, 18 U.S.C. § 

1028(a)(7);:



* five counts of producing false identification documents, 18 U.S.C. § 

1028(a)(1); and:



* three counts of possession of stolen mail, 18 U.S.C. § 1708.



The defendant was sentenced to a term of 63 months of imprisonment. 

U.S. v. Hooks, No. 99-4754, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 2388 (4th Cir. Sept. 

14, 2000).



Ohio, Southern District:



In May 2000, following a bench trial, the district court found a 

defendant guilty of the following violations:



* using the identification of another with intent to commit unlawful 

activity, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7);:



* possessing false identification with intent to defraud the United 

States, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4);



* furnishing false information to the Commissioner of Social Security, 

42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(6);



* fraud and misuse of an entry document, 18 U.S.C. § 1546, and;



* making a false statement to an agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1001.:



The court sentenced the defendant to 6 months of imprisonment, plus 3 

years of supervised release. U.S. v. Balde, No. 00-4070, 2001 U.S. App. 

Lexis 23741 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2001).



Wisconsin, Eastern District:



* A defendant pleaded guilty to using another person’s SSN to commit 

fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7); using unauthorized credit cards, 18 

U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2); and issuing a false SSN, 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B).



* The defendant was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment. U.S. v. 

Lippold, No. 00-2868, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 15126 (7th Cir. July 2, 

2001).



[End of section]



Appendix III: Identity Theft Subcommittee Membership:



This appendix presents a membership overview (see table 9) of the 

Identity Theft Subcommittee, which was established by the U.S. Attorney 

General’s White Collar Crime Council in 1999, following passage of the 

Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998.



Table 9: List of Federal Agencies and National Organizations 

Represented on the Identity Theft Subcommittee:



Participating agencies and organizations: Federal agencies; Department 

of Justice:; Executive Office for United States Attorneys; Federal 

Bureau of Investigation; Fraud Section Criminal Division[A]; 

Immigration and Naturalization Service; Office of Consumer Litigation; 

Office of Policy and Legislation, Criminal Division; Tax Division; U.S. 

Trustees Program; ; Department of State:; Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security; ; Department of the Treasury:; Internal Revenue Service; 

Office of Enforcement; Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration; Secret Service; ; Federal Trade Commission; ; Postal 

Inspection Service; ; Sentencing Commission; ; Social Security 

Administration, Office of the Inspector General; ; Regulatory 

agencies:; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency.



Participating agencies and organizations: National organizations:; 

International Association of Chiefs of Police; National Association of 

Attorneys General; National District Attorneys Association.



[A] A Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section serves as chair of the 

subcommittee.



Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division.



[End of table]



As table 9 indicates, in addition to federal law enforcement and 

regulatory agencies, subcommittee membership has state and local 

representation through three national organizations:



* International Association of Chiefs of Police. The association’s 

goals, among others, are to advance the science and art of police 

services; develop and disseminate improved administrative, technical, 

and operational practices and promote their use in police work; and 

foster cooperation and exchange of information and experience among 

police administrators.



* National Association of Attorneys General. A goal of the association-

-whose membership includes the attorneys general and chief legal 

officers of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, and associated territories--is to promote cooperation 

and coordination on interstate legal matters in order to foster a 

responsive and efficient legal system for state citizens.



* National District Attorneys Association. A purpose of the association 

is to promote the continuing education of prosecuting attorneys by 

various means, such as arranging seminars and fostering periodic 

conventions or meetings for the discussion and solution of legal 

problems affecting the public interest in the administration of 

justice. Among other sources, training is offered at the National 

Advocacy Center--located on the campus of the University of South 

Carolina in Columbia--which is a joint venture of the association and 

the U.S. Department of Justice.



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Law Enforcement Agencies with Access to Identity Theft 
Data 

Clearinghouse Via Consumer Sentinel:



In response to a provision in the Identity Theft and Assumption 

Deterrence Act of 1998, FTC established the Identity Theft Data 

Clearinghouse in November 1999 to gather information from any consumer 

who wishes to file a complaint or pose an inquiry concerning identity 

theft. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies may access 

the Clearinghouse database via a secure link in FTC’s Consumer Sentinel 

Network.



The Consumer Sentinel Web site was initially established in 1997 to 

track telemarketing or mass-market fraud complaints received by FTC. 

With the passage of the Identity Theft Act, FTC added a link in the 

Consumer Sentinel to allow law enforcement agencies access to the 

Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse database. In order to gain access to 

the secure Web site, agencies must sign a confidentiality agreement. 

Only domestic law enforcement agencies are permitted to have access to 

the detailed information in the Clearinghouse database. Other domestic 

government agencies, consumer reporting agencies, and private entities 

are permitted limited access to overall or aggregate information. Also, 

at www.consumer.gov/sentinel, the general public can view macro-level 

information (e.g., overall statistics by states or cities) that FTC 

maintains on general fraud and identity theft matters.



As of May 24, 2002, a total of 352 law enforcement agencies (46 federal 

and 306 state and local) had entered into agreements with FTC to have 

access to the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse via the secure link in 

the Consumer Sentinel. The following is a list of the 352 agencies.



Federal Agencies: 46:



Air Force Judge Advocate General

Army Legal Assistance

Army Judge Advocate General

Coast Guard

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Customs Service

Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Service

Department of Justice, Consumer Litigation, Civil Division

Department of Justice, Fraud Section, Criminal Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Inspector General

Federal Trade Commission

Food and Drug Administration

General Services Administration, Inspector General

Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations

Marine Corps, Office of Legal Assistance

Navy Judge Advocate General

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Inspector General

Postal Inspection Service

Probation Office, District of Massachusetts

Secret Service

Small Business Administration, Inspector General

Social Security Administration Inspector General

State Department, Bureau of Diplomatic Security,

Criminal Investigations Division

Treasury IG for Tax Administration

U.S. Attorney Offices

California, Eastern District

California, Southern District

Colorado

Florida, Northern District

Iowa, Southern District

Louisiana, Middle District

Minnesota

Missouri, Western District

New Hampshire

New York, Eastern District

New York, Southern District

New York, Western District

North Carolina, Eastern District

Oregon

Pennsylvania, Eastern District

Pennsylvania, Western District

Washington D.C.

Washington, Eastern District

West Virginia, Southern District

U.S. Trustees, Executive Office:



State and Local Agencies: 306:



Alabama: 3



Attorney General

Homewood Police Department

Mountain Brook Police Department:



Alaska: 3:



Division of Banking, Securities, and Corporations

State Troopers

Division of Insurance:



Arizona: 2:



Attorney General

Corporation Commission:



Arkansas: 2:



Conway Arkansas Police Department

Insurance Fraud Investigation Division:



California: 45:



Attorney General

Arcadia Police Department

Anaheim Police Department

Bakersfield Police Department

Beverly Hills Police Department

Chino Police Department

Claremont Police Department

Clayton Police Department

Coronado Police Department

Davis Police Department

Department of Corporations

Fresno Police Department

Glendora Police Department

Huntington Beach Police Department

La Mesa Police Department

Los Angeles City Attorney

Los Angeles County District Attorney

Los Angeles County Sheriff

Marin County District Attorney, Consumer Protection Unit

Merced County District Attorney’s Office

Monterey County District Attorney

Morro Bay Police Department

Napa County District Attorney

Napa Sheriff’s Office

Novato Police Department

Orange County District Attorney

Orange County Sheriff

Palo Alto Police Department

Placer County Sheriff’s Department

Pomona Police Department

Riverside County District Attorney

Roseville Police Department

Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office

Sacramento County Sheriff

San Bernardino County District Attorney

San Carlos Police Department

Santa Cruz Sheriff Office

San Diego District Attorney

San Diego Police Department

San Francisco Police Department

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney

Santa Barbara County District Attorney

Signal Hill Police Department

Solano County District Attorney

Ventura County District Attorney:



Colorado: 7:



Attorney General

Bureau of Investigation

District Attorney 4th Judicial District

District Attorney 8th Judicial District

Douglas County Sheriff

Jefferson County Sheriff

Pueblo County District Attorney:



Connecticut: 5:



Attorney General

Department of Banking

Department of Consumer Protection

Naugatuck Police Department

New Britain Police Department:



Delaware: 1:



New Castle Police Department:



District of Columbia: 2:



Corporation Counsel

Department of Insurance and Securities:



Florida: 17:



Attorney General

Altamonte Springs Police Department

City of Panokee Police Department

Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance

Coral Gables Police Department

Davie Police Department

Daytona Beach Police Department

Department of Law Enforcement

Fort Lauderdale Police Department

Miami-Dade Police Department, High-Tech Crime Squad

Office of Statewide Prosecution

Office of the State Attorney, 10th Judicial Circuit

Office of the State Attorney, 13th Judicial Circuit

Orange County Consumer Fraud Unit

Palm Beach County Sheriff

Panama City Police Department

Stuart Police Department:



Georgia: 5:



Attorney General

Bureau of Investigation

College Park Police Department:



DeKalb County Solicitor General

Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs:



Hawaii: 1:



Office of Consumer Protection:



Idaho: 1:



Attorney General:



Illinois: 10:



Attorney General

Bloomington Police Department

Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office

Flossmoor Police Department

Minier Police Department

Ogle County State’s Attorney’s Office

Orlando Park Police Department

Schaumburg Police Department

Securities Department

Will County State’s Attorney:



Indiana: 8:



Attorney General

Bartholomew County Sheriff

Brown County Sheriff

Fishers Police Department

Fountain City Prosecuting Attorney

Indianapolis Police Department

Martin County Sheriff

Tipton Police Department:



Iowa: 5:



Le Mars Police Department

Manson Police Department

Marshalltown Police Department

Newton Police Department

Polk County Attorney’s Office:



Kansas: 2:



Johnson County District Attorney

Securities Commissioner:



Kentucky: 4:



Attorney General

Berea Police Department

Bowling Green Police Department

Public Service Commission:



Louisiana: 4:



Department of Justice

State Police

Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office

Union Parish Sheriff:



Maryland: 9:



Attorney General

Baltimore City Police Department

Baltimore County Police Department

Hartford County State’s Attorney’s Office

Howard County Consumer Affairs

Hyattsville Police Department

Montgomery County Consumer Affairs

Montgomery County States Attorney

Talbot County Sheriff:



Massachusetts: 2:



Attorney General

Boston Police Department Intelligence Unit:



Michigan: 9:



Attorney General

Burton Police Department

Genesee County Sheriffs Department

Houghton City Police Department

Houghton County Sheriff

Lansing Police Department

Livingston County Sheriff’s Office

Meridan Township Police Department

South Lyon Police Department:



Minnesota: 8:



Attorney General

Department of Commerce

State Patrol

Brooklyn Center Police Department

Edina Police Department

Maplewood Police Department

Oak Park Heights Police Department

Ramesy County Attorney’s Office:



Missouri: 7:



Attorney General

Manchester Police Department

Secretary of State, Securities Division

St. Charles Police Department

St. Francois County Sheriff

St. Peters Police Department

Taney County Sheriff:



Montana: 3:



Attorney General

State Auditor

Department of Administration, Office of Consumer Protection:



Nebraska: 2:



Attorney General

Department of Banking and Finance:



Nevada: 3:



Attorney General

Elko Police Department

Secretary of State:



New Hampshire: 1:



Attorney General:



New Jersey: 12:



Attorney General

Cape May County Prosecutor

Clifton Township Police Department

Dover Turnpike Police Department

Jefferson Township Police

Marlboro Township Police Department

Maywood Police Department

Middlesex County Prosecutor

Moorestown Township Police Department

Piscataway Township Police Department

Somerset County Department of Consumer Affairs

Union County Prosecutor:



New Mexico: 1:



Securities Division:



New York: 8:



Attorney General

Cheektowaga Police Department

Clinton County District Attorney

Lancaster Village Police Department

Nassau County District Attorney

Rockland County Sheriff

Rouses Point Police Department

State Police:



North Carolina: 11:



Chowan County Sheriff’s Office

Department of Justice

Gaston County Police Department

Hickory Police Department

Nash County Sheriff Office

Mooresville Police Department

Mt. Gilead Police Department

Raleigh Police Department

Pinehurst Police Department

Union County Sheriff’s Office

Winston-Salem Police Department:



Ohio: 10:



Attorney General

Beachwood Police Department

Brunswick Police Department

Cheviot Police Department

Clayton Police Department

Division of Securities

Findlay Police Department

Mentor-on-the-Lake Police Department

Wickliffe Police Department

Willoughby Police Department:



Oklahoma: 3:



Attorney General

Purcell Police Department

Portland Police Bureau:



Oregon: 2:



Douglas County Sheriff Office

Medford Police Department:



Pennsylvania: 10:



Attorney General

Allegheny County Police Department

Duryea Police Department

Easttown Township Police Department

Lower Allen Township Police Department

Lower Makefield Township Police Department

Philadelphia Police Department

West Whiteland Township Police Department

Wyomissing Police Department

York Police Department:



Rhode Island: 3:



Attorney General

Securities Division

State Police:



South Carolina: 5:



Charleston Police Department

City of North Charleston Police Department

Myrtle Beach Police Department

Real Estate Commission

Secretary of State:



South Dakota: 2:



Attorney General

South Dakota Securities Commission:



Tennessee: 11:



Bartlett Police Department

Bristol Police Department

Franklin Police Department

La Vergne Police Department

Marshall County Sheriff’s Office

Millington Police Department

Munford Police Department:



Regulatory Authority

Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office

Smyrna Police Department

Tipton County Sheriff’s Office:



Texas: 17:



Attorney General

Allen Police Department

Coppell Police Department

Copperas Cove Police Department

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office

Dallas Police Department

Department of Public Safety

Department of Insurance

Fort Bend County Sheriff Office

Garland Police Department

Grapevine Police Department

Missouri City Police Department

North Richland Hills Police Department

Richardson Police Department

San Antonio Police Department

Travis County District Attorney

Wichita Falls Police Department:



Utah: 5:



Attorney General

Cedar City Police Department

Department of Commerce, Consumer Protection Division

Midvale City Police Department

Utah County Attorney’s Office:



Vermont: 4:



Attorney General

Caledonia County Sheriff’s Department

Essex Police Department

Rutland County Sheriff:



Virginia: 10:



Attorney General

Alexandria Police Department

Arlington County Police Department

Fairfax City Dept. of Telecom and Consumer Services

Fredricksburg Police Department

Lynchburg Police Department

State Police

Virginia Beach Commonwealth Attorney

Virginia Beach Police Department

William and Mary Police Department:



Washington: 7:



Attorney General

Grays Harbor County Sheriff

Lynnwood Police Department

Mount Vernon Police Department

Poulsbo Police Department

Securities Division

Tumwater Police Department:



Wisconsin: 10:



Attorney General, Department of Justice

Department of Financial Institutions

Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection

Greenfield Police Department

Monona Police Department

Monroe Police Department

New Berlin Police Department

River Falls Police Department

University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department

Waukesha County Sheriff:



Wyoming: 2:



Attorney General

District Attorney 1st District:



[End of section]



Appendix V: Military-Related Identity Theft Cases and Plans for Soldier 

Sentinel System:



This appendix (1) gives examples of identity theft cases that have a 

military connection, for example, cases that affect uniformed personnel 

and (2) discusses plans for establishing Soldier Sentinel, an online 

system designed specifically to collect consumer and identity theft 

complaint information from members of the armed forces and their 

families.



Examples of Military-Related Identity Theft Cases:



Due to various factors, members of the armed services may be more 

susceptible than the general public to identity theft. For instance, 

given their mobility, service members may have bank, credit, and other 

accounts in more than one state and even overseas. At times, service 

members may be deployed to locations far away from family members, 

which can increase dependence on credit cards, automatic teller 

machines, and other remote-access financial services. For these same 

reasons, while any victim of identity theft can face considerable 

problems, the rigors of military life can compound problems encountered 

by uniformed personnel and family members who are victimized.



We found no comprehensive or centralized data on the number of 

military-related identity theft cases. For instance, in response to our 

inquiry, an official with the Defense Criminal Investigative 

Service[Footnote 22] told us the agency’s case information system 

cannot specifically isolate and quantify the number of identity theft 

cases. However, in conducting a literature search, we found various 

examples of military-related identity theft cases, including the 

following:



* One case involved over 100 victims, each a high-ranking military 

official. In this case, according to multi-agency task force results 

reported by the Social Security Administration’s Office of the 

Inspector General (SSA/OIG) for fiscal year 2000, two perpetrators used 

the Internet to obtain the names and SSNs of the military officials. 

Then, the perpetrators used the personal information to fraudulently 

obtain credit cards. According to the SSA/OIG, the case culminated with 

the perpetrators being incarcerated and ordered to pay restitution of 

over $287,000 to the companies that were victimized by the scheme.:



* Another case, reported in January 2002 by the Army News Service, 

involved a perpetrator who was caught trying to cash a $9,000 check 

drawn on the bank account of a Navy retiree. During the subsequent 

investigation, the perpetrator’s laptop computer was found to contain 

several thousand military names, SSNs, and other information. The 

common link among the military veterans on the list was that, in 

accordance with a once-common practice, they all had filed their 

military discharge form (Department of Defense Form 214) with their 

local county courthouse in order to ensure always being able to have a 

certified copy available to receive Veterans Administration benefits. 

The Form 214 contains an individual’s SSN and birth date, and the 

document becomes a public record after being filed; some courthouses 

have even put this information online. Now, according to the news 

story, the military’s transition counselors are advising soldiers to 

not file discharge forms with county courthouses but rather to 

safeguard any documents that have personal identification information.



* In a recent (April 17, 2002), press release, the Defense Criminal 

Investigative Service announced the arrest of a suspect for alleged 

violations involving one count of identity theft and one count of using 

a false SSN. Between November 1999 and October 2001, the suspect 

allegedly assumed the SSN of four different persons. The suspect 

represented himself as a major with the U.S. Army and conducted 

fraudulent schemes to obtain a 2001 Nissan truck, a 2002 Mercedes Benz, 

and a 2002 Jaguar. In addition to the Defense Criminal Investigative 

Service, two other federal law enforcement agencies (the FBI and the 

SSA/OIG) and one local agency (St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office, 

Louisiana) participated in the investigation. Prosecution of the case 

is to be handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of 

Louisiana.



Plans to Establish the Soldier Sentinel System:



In January 2001, FTC and the Department of Defense announced the 

signing of a memorandum of understanding to create an online system 

(Soldier Sentinel) designed specifically to collect consumer and 

identity theft complaints from the members of the armed forces and 

their families. Among other purposes, the system is to provide the 

military community a convenient way to file complaints directly with 

law enforcement officials. Also, the Department of Defense and its 

component services are to use the data collected to shape consumer 

education and protection policies at all levels within the military.



Plans call for Soldier Sentinel to mirror the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel 

system, which provides secure, password-protected access to a consumer 

complaint database and other tools designed to allow law enforcement to 

share data about fraud. Also, the Soldier Sentinel agreement allows the 

Department of Defense and the component services to collect, share, and 

analyze specific service-related information.



In April 2002, FTC staff told us that the Soldier Sentinel was not yet 

operational but was anticipated to be online during the summer of 2002.



[End of section]



Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Justice:



U.S. Department of Justice:



JUN 19 2002:



Washington D.C. 20530:



Mr. Richard M. Stana Director, Justice Issues U.S. General Accounting 

Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Stana:



On June 5, 2002, the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided the 

Department of Justice copies of its draft report entitled “IDENTITY 

THEFT: Greater Awareness and Use of Existing Data Are Needed” and 

requested its comments on the substance of the report. The Department 

generally agrees with the substance of the GAO draft report and its 

recommendation to promote greater use of available information sources 

to combat identity theft. We are providing additional information 

concerning our efforts to address this issue.



In its draft report, the GAO recommends “that the Attorney General have 

the Identity Theft Subcommittee promote greater awareness and use of 

the Consumer Sentinel Network and the Clearinghouse database by all 

levels of law enforcement - federal, state and local.” The Department 

agrees that the Subcommittee should continue its efforts to facilitate 

the dissemination of information about Consumer Sentinel and the 

database to all levels of law enforcement. On an ongoing basis, the 

Subcommittee is continuing to do so through training programs for 

federal prosecutors at the National Advocacy Center, information 

bulletins on the Department of Justice’s intranet, and regular meetings 

of other interagency working groups that the Department chairs. The 

Subcommittee also will consult with state and local law enforcement 

representatives on the Subcommittee to identify additional mechanisms 

for informing police departments and sheriffs’ offices about Consumer 

Sentinel. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. 

Secret Service, and the Department have already been conducting a 

series of regional training conferences on identity theft this year in 

five locations around the country, and are exploring the idea of 

conducting an expanded series of regional training seminars on identity 

theft in calendar year 2003.



In this regard, the Department also notes that in the regional training 

seminars cosponsored with the FTC and the Secret Service, it has 

included specific training about Consumer Sentinel and the identity 

theft database and has advocated that law enforcement agencies make 

full use of existing multiagency task forces that address identity 

theft. While many smaller police departments and sheriff’s offices may 

not have their own computers to maintain Internet access to Consumer 

Sentinel, their participation in these multiagency task forces can 

enable them to make use of Consumer Sentinel and the identity theft 

database in identity theft investigations.



Further, as part of its efforts to inform the public about identity 

theft and ensure that courts are meting out appropriate criminal 

sanctions for offenses involving identity theft, the Department 

recently has taken two significant steps. First, on May 2, 2002, 

Attorney General Ashcroft announced a nationwide “sweep” of federal 

identity theft prosecutions. In that sweep, 73 criminal prosecutions 

were brought against 135 individuals in 24 districts, including 25 new 

prosecutions in the 24 hours preceding the announcement. Further 

details are set forth in the prepared remarks of the Attorney General 

at http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2002/

050202agidtheftranscript.httn. Second, also on May 2, 2002, the 

Attorney General announced that the Department would seek legislation 

to increase criminal sentences in identity theft-related federal cases, 

including a new provision for aggravated identity theft and expansion 

of the existing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). On May 22, 2002, 

Senator Feinstein introduced this proposal as S. 2541.



We believe that these efforts will address the GAO recommendation. If 

you should have any questions concerning the Department’s comments you 

may contact Vickie L. Sloan, Director, Audit Liaison Office, Justice 

Management Division on 202-514-0469.



Sincerely,



Robert F. Diegelman:



Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration:



Signed by Robert F. Diegelman:



[End of section]



Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777

Danny R. Burton (214) 777-5600:



Staff Acknowledgments:



In addition to the above, David P. Alexander, Shirley A. Jones, Jan B. 

Montgomery, Tim Outlaw, Robert J. Rivas, and Richard M. Swayze made key 

contributions to this report.



[End of section]



FOOTNOTES:



[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Identity Fraud: Information on 

Prevalence, Cost, and Internet Impact is Limited, GAO/GGD-98-100BR 

(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1998) and Identity Fraud: Prevalence and Cost 

Appear to be Growing, GAO-02-363 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002).



[2] Public Law 105-318 (1998).



[3] United States Sentencing Commission, Economic Crimes Policy Team, 

Identity Theft Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 1999).



[4] Many state statutes provide that identity theft of credit, money, 

goods, services, or other property over certain amounts is a felony. 

Under the specified amounts, the offense would be a criminal 

misdemeanor.



[5] SSA/OIG, Management Advisory Report - Analysis of Social Security 

Number Misuse Allegations Made to the Social Security Administration’s 

Fraud Hotline (A-15-99-92019, Aug. 1999).



[6] GAO-02-36 3.



[7] Prepared statement of Mr. Bruce Swartz, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, for a hearing 

(“On-line Fraud and Crime: Are Consumers Safe?”) before the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (May 23, 2001).



[8] The UCR Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of 

nearly 17,000 city, county, and state law enforcement agencies 

voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. 

According to the FBI, during 2000, law enforcement agencies active in 

the UCR Program represented nearly 254 million U.S. inhabitants, or 94 

percent of the total population as established by the Bureau of the 

Census.



[9] We judgmentally selected these states on the basis of their having 

either the highest incidences of reported identity theft or the 

longest-standing applicable statutes (see app. I).



[10] According to a California deputy attorney general, the state’s 

identity theft statute was amended in 2000 to remove certain language 

(i.e., “without the authorization”) in order to cover cases where 

victims give information willingly (e.g., to car rental companies), but 

the information is later used for unlawful purposes.



[11] The Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is located in 

Pontiac, Michigan. According to a deputy prosecutor, investigations of 

crimes are handled by each of the 42 local police departments in the 

county.



[12] First interim report of the Sixteenth Statewide Grand Jury, 

Statewide Grand Jury Report - Identity Theft in Florida, in the Supreme 

Court of the State of Florida (Case No. SC 01-1095, Jan. 10, 2002). 

Members of the Sixteenth Statewide Grand Jury were empaneled by the 

Florida Supreme Court at the request of the state’s governor to 

investigate and address identity theft-related issues as they occur in 

Florida.



[13] As discussed in more detail later in this report, the subcommittee 

was established in 1999 to foster coordination of investigative and 

prosecutorial strategies and promote consumer education programs. 



[14] Of the 38 task forces, the Secret Service categorized 24 as being 

financial crimes task forces, 4 as West African organized crime task 

forces, 9 as electronic crimes task forces, and 1 as a violent crimes 

task force. According to Secret Service officials, investigations 

conducted by each the 38 task forces can include identity theft-related 

cases, although none of the 38 focuses solely or exclusively on such 

cases.



[15] Prepared statement of Mr. Bruce Townsend, Special Agent in Charge, 

Financial Crimes Division, U.S. Secret Service, for a hearing (“On-line 

Fraud and Crime: Are Consumers Safe?”) before the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection; House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce (May 23, 2001).



[16] The examples are excerpts from news releases made by Florida’s 

Office of Statewide Prosecution. Generally, the news releases noted 

that charges are merely accusations and arrested defendants are 

presumed innocent until and unless the charges are proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt.



[17] Prepared statement of the FTC, Identity Theft: the FTC’s Response, 

before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government 

Information, Senate Judiciary Committee (Mar. 20, 2002). 



[18] Further, as discussed in appendix V, FTC and the Department of 

Defense have agreed to establish Soldier Sentinel, an online system 

designed specifically to collect consumer and identity theft complaint 

information from members of the armed forces and their families.



[19] The relevant section of this legislation is codified at 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028(a)(7) (“fraud and related activity in connection with 

identification documents and information”).



[20] LexisNexis provides a researchable database service, which 

includes legal documents (federal and state laws, regulatory 

information, and court decisions), news, public records, and business 

information via on-line, hardcopy print, and CD-ROM formats.



[21] The UCR Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of 

nearly 17,000 city, county, and state law enforcement agencies 

voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. 

According to the FBI, during 2000, law enforcement agencies active in 

the UCR Program represented nearly 254 million U.S. inhabitants, or 94 

percent of the total population as established by the Bureau of the 

Census. 



[22] The Defense Criminal Investigative Service is the investigative 

arm of the Department of Defense’s Office of the Inspector General. 



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: