United States v. Clark

Last updated
United States of America v. Clark
US-CourtOfAppeals-8thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Full case nameUnited States v. Clark
DecidedFebruary 10, 2012
Citation(s)United States of America, Appellee, v. Jason Elliott Clark, Appellant (No. 11–2270)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingWollman, Murphy and Benton

United States of America v. Clark (U.S vs. Clark, 11-2270) (United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit 2012) is the name of a lawsuit against Jason Elliott Clark by the U.S. government based on identity theft, bank fraud and conspiracy. This was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Clark appealed his conviction for aggravated identity theft based on the sufficiency of the evidence and the court's admission of certain prior acts of evidence.

Contents

Case summary

Jason Elliott Clark along with, Marcus Benson, Jason Richard Hansen, and Nou Thoa were indicted for stealing identities and subsequently stealing more than $150,000 from victims. Clark was charged with two counts of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. Clark and his partners in crime conspired to obtain funds from the accounts of others by creating counterfeit checks including stolen bank routing and account numbers. Clark used personally identifiable information with the intent to commit bank fraud and access device fraud. The bank fraud charges were related to the unlawful withdrawals and transfer of money from the accounts of the victims. Full conviction would have resulted in a maximum penalty of 30 years for conspiracy, 30 years for each count of bank fraud, 15 years for identity theft, 10 years for each count of access device fraud, and two years on each aggravated identity theft count. Ultimately Clark was sentenced to 48 months in prison based on bank fraud conspiracy under 18 U.S.C.   § 1349 , bank fraud (two counts) under 18 U.S.C.   § 1344 , identity theft under 18 U.S.C.   § 1028 and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C.   § 1028(a)(1) .

Crime details

The conspiracy was led by Benson, while Clark, Hansen and Thoa were co-conspirators. Benson provided fraudulent checks which the co-conspirators deposited into his personal bank account. The money was then withdrawn, the bulk of it sent to Benson and a small portion kept by the co-conspirators as payment for the services provided. Benson, Clark and Hanson originally became friends when working together at an electronics store. Hansen left this job and began working as an analyst for a mortgage broker. During his employment, he decided to use confidential personally identifiable information including social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and account numbers of individuals applying for mortgage loans. Benson at the same time also started his own mortgage loan brokerage. Hansen contacted Benson through Clark to offer him this personal information, claiming they were mortgage leads. Ultimately Benson used the confidential personally identifiable information to obtain the fraudulent checks. Hansen also approached Thao for assistance with the check-cashing scheme. In September 2007, Clark deposited a check from the victim (D.R.O) for $10,250 and then again for $145,000; supposedly as payment for a property that Clark owned and was now selling. Wells Fargo initiated an investigation where the initial suspicion was that Clark was a fraud victim. It turned out quite the opposite later when they received a testimony from D.R.O that they had in fact never sent any money to Clark. Clark subsequently admitted to getting the checks from Benson, withdrawing the funds, and sending him the vast majority of the funds. Officers arrested Benson and executed a consent search of his home where they found fraudulent ID documents, credit cards, and skimmers as well as photographs of Clark and the other co-defendants, Hansen and Thao.

Trial and appeal

Based on 18 U.S.C.   § 1028(a)(1) , the government must prove that the defendant knew that the identity was associated with a real person rather than being fabricated. Clark argued that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark knew that the ID on the check belonged to an actual person. The court concluded that a reasonable juror could infer that Clark (as a bank account holder and prior identity thief) knew that banks only open accounts and give credit to real people.

Double jeopardy

A defendant may move for judgment of acquittal after the government closes its evidence or all evidence under rule 23 [1] of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Clark attempted to gain acquittal on identity theft and aggravated identity theft. Clark argued that sections 18 U.S.C.   § 1028A and 18 U.S.C.   § 1028(a)(7) of US code proscribe to the same offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution would prohibit a sentence for both identity theft and aggravated identity theft. In United States v. Felix 503 U.S. 378 (1992), it was ruled that an offense and conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same; fundamentally one cannot be tried twice for the same offense. In this case however, the court decided that section 18 U.S.C.   § 1028(b)(2) allows for punishment for both identity theft and aggravated identity theft and that the intent of the United States Congress is to impose multiple punishments for both identity theft and aggravated identity theft, as both are separate statutes. In Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932), it was confirmed that multiple punishments for convictions that fall under separate statutes do not violate the double jeopardy clause. The motion of judgment of acquittal was denied, citing Chase [2] applying the same standard of review to the district.

Character evidence

During the trial, the district court brought up a case from 2001 where Clark pleaded guilty for identity theft. Clark argued that this reference to prior bad acts was not admissible as character evidence. The court concluded that evidence of prior bad actions was in fact admissible under exceptions of rule 404(b) [3] of the Federal Rules of Evidence for limited purposes such as intent, knowledge or absence of mistake as long as it was relevant to a material issue. Since Clark presented a defense that he acted in good faith when depositing these checks, his knowledge and intent were considered an issue. Rule 404 (b) also permits the inclusion of past bad acts when the prior act is similar and not too remote in time from the current crime. The motion for admission of prior acts was also denied. Citing Ruiz-Estrada, [4] the court stated that they would only reverse the decision when such evidence had no bearing on the case and was primarily being used to prove that the defendant had the propensity to commit a criminal act. Citing Balanga, [5] the court concluded that a reasonable juror could have found the defendant guilty of the charged conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. The court furthered that the conviction can be based on both circumstantial and direct evidence, citing Erdman. [6]

Clark ultimately received a total sentence of 48 months in jail – 24 months for bank fraud and 24 months for aggravated identity theft.

Identity theft is usually not committed as an end in itself but rather as a means of a facilitating some other crime like financial or real property theft. Identity theft was not a federal crime in the US until 1998 when the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act [7] became effective. Previously only credit granting agencies who suffered monetary losses were considered victims. With the passing of this act it was the first time that the person whose ID was stolen was viewed as the actual victim.

Under 18 U.S.C.   § 1028 the production of an unlawful identification document, authentication features or false identification, possesses such a document is committing a crime and will be appropriately punished per stated consequences. One of the largest most sophisticated identity theft cases in the US involved 111 people who used skimming devices to swipe and steal consumer credit card information at retail and food establishments. [8] It is estimated that identity theft costs the US Internal Revenue Service about $5.2 Billion in 2011. [9]

Check fraud in the US cost American consumers and banks about $20 billion in 2010 and some argue that this system (checks) should have been eliminated a long time ago. [10] Not only does eliminating checks reduce the probability of fraud but also reduce the costs of processing. Bank fraud in the US is covered under 18 U.S.C.   § 1344 and refers to any attempt to defraud a financial institution for the purpose of obtaining money, funds, credits, assets or other property owned by the financial institution.

As most financial systems these days are electronic bank fraud crimes are often executed through computer systems and networks. Under 18 U.S.C.   § 1030(4) exceeding authorization to a computer system knowingly with the intent to defraud and obtain anything of value is also illegal. Damaging a bank computer is also an offense under 18 U.S.C.   § 1030(a)(5) .

Fraud prevention - data mining and pattern identification

Companies are taking advantage of security information and event management systems in conjunction with large data mining and pattern identification techniques to reduce the risk of financial fraud. Patterns of fraud and inappropriate transactions must be discerned from normal or acceptable user activity. Although the above case focuses on check fraud, credit card fraud has typically been the most prevalent type of identity theft facilitated fraud. [11] Banks have employed real-time monitoring based on rule based engines however due to the dynamic nature of fraud, the bank's own fraud trends, the customer's patterns and the exchange of data between financial institutions has to be just as flexible. [12]

Summary of laws applied

See also

Related Research Articles

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act U.S. law

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

Theft Act of taking anothers property without permission or consent

Theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. Someone who carries out an act of theft may be described as a thief.

Fraud Intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law or criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong. The purpose of fraud may be monetary gain or other benefits, for example by obtaining a passport, travel document, or driver's license, or mortgage fraud, where the perpetrator may attempt to qualify for a mortgage by way of false statements.

Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking or theft of the personal property of another person or business. It was an offence under the common law of England and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the common law of England into their own law, where in many cases it remains in force.

Identity theft Deliberate use of someone elses identity, usually as a method to gain a financial advantage

Identity theft occurs when someone uses another person's personal identifying information, like their name, identifying number, or credit card number, without their permission, to commit fraud or other crimes. The term identity theft was coined in 1964. Since that time, the definition of identity theft has been statutorily defined throughout both the U.K. and the United States as the theft of personally identifiable information. Identity theft deliberately uses someone else's identity as a method to gain financial advantages or obtain credit and other benefits, and perhaps to cause other person's disadvantages or loss. The person whose identity has been stolen may suffer adverse consequences, especially if they are falsely held responsible for the perpetrator's actions. Personally identifiable information generally includes a person's name, date of birth, social security number, driver's license number, bank account or credit card numbers, PINs, electronic signatures, fingerprints, passwords, or any other information that can be used to access a person's financial resources.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law, which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization. Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.

Bank fraud is the use of potentially illegal means to obtain money, assets, or other property owned or held by a financial institution, or to obtain money from depositors by fraudulently posing as a bank or other financial institution. In many instances, bank fraud is a criminal offence. While the specific elements of particular banking fraud laws vary depending on jurisdictions, the term bank fraud applies to actions that employ a scheme or artifice, as opposed to bank robbery or theft. For this reason, bank fraud is sometimes considered a white-collar crime.

Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit.

Possession of stolen goods Category of crime

Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.

Credit card fraud is an inclusive term for fraud committed using a payment card, such as a credit card or debit card. The purpose may be to obtain goods or services or to make payment to another account, which is controlled by a criminal. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard is the data security standard created to help financial institutions process card payments securely and reduce card fraud.

Postville raid Immigration raid in United States

The Postville raid was a raid at the Agriprocessors, Inc. kosher slaughterhouse and meat packing plant in Postville, Iowa, on May 12, 2008, executed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security together with other agencies.

Federal crime in the United States Actions made illegal by Congress

In the United States, a federal crime or federal offense is an act that is made illegal by U.S. federal legislation enacted by both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives and signed into law by the president. Prosecution happens at both the federal and the state levels and so a "federal crime" is one that is prosecuted under federal criminal law and not under state criminal law under which most of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted.

Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the law enhancing the sentence for identity theft requires proof that an individual knew that the identity card or number he had used belonged to another, actual person. Simply using a Social Security Number is not sufficient connection to another individual.

Albert Gonzalez American computer hacker and criminal

Albert Gonzalez is an American computer hacker and computer criminal who is accused of masterminding the combined credit card theft and subsequent reselling of more than 170 million card and ATM numbers from 2005 to 2007: the biggest such fraud in history. Gonzalez and his accomplices used SQL injection to deploy backdoors on several corporate systems in order to launch packet sniffing attacks which allowed him to steal computer data from internal corporate networks.

Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346, added by the United States Congress in 1988, which states "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Identity Theft Resource Center

The Identity Theft Resource Center is a United States non-profit organization founded to provide victim assistance and consumer education through its toll-free call center, website and social media. The ITRC educates consumers, corporations, government agencies, and other organizations on best practices for fraud and identity theft detection, reduction and mitigation; and, serves as a relevant national resource on consumer issues related to cybersecurity, data breaches, social media, fraud, scams, and other issues. It was created in December 1999 in San Diego, California. The center also provides education programs to prevent privacy issues such as data breaches, scams, and fraud.

Operation Power Outage was a sting operation targeted at arresting and indicting members of the criminal group Armenian Power operating in the United States. The group is accused of racketeering offenses, bank fraud schemes, kidnappings, and drug trafficking. Armenian Power which originated 20 years ago in East Hollywood and has over 200 members, has developed from a street gang into an international criminal organization.

<i>United States v. Warshak</i>

United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet service provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause. However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails was admissible at trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.

Cyber crime, or computer crime, refers to any crime that involves a computer and a network. The computer may have been used in the commission of a crime, or it may be the target. Netcrime refers, more precisely, to criminal exploitation of the Internet. Issues surrounding this type of crime have become high-profile, particularly those surrounding hacking, copyright infringement, identity theft, child pornography, and child grooming. There are also problems of privacy when confidential information is lost or intercepted, lawfully or otherwise.

<i>United States v. Ivanov</i>

United States v. Ivanov was an American court case addressing subject-matter jurisdiction for computer crimes performed by Internet users outside of the United States against American businesses and infrastructure. In trial court, Aleksey Vladimirovich Ivanov of Chelyabinsk, Russia was indicted for conspiracy, computer fraud, extortion, and possession of illegal access devices; all crimes committed against the Online Information Bureau (OIB) whose business and infrastructure were based in Vernon, Connecticut.

References

  1. ↑ Rule 23 - Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Cornell University - Legal Information Institute
  2. ↑ 'United States v. Chase, 451 F.3d 474, 479 (8th Cir. 2006)
  3. ↑ Rule 404 - Federal Rules of Criminal Evidence, Cornell University - Legal Information Institute
  4. ↑ United States v. Ruiz-Estrada, 312 F.3d 398, 403 (8th Cir. 2002)
  5. ↑ United States v. Balanga, 109 F.3d 1299, 1301 (8th Cir. 1997)
  6. ↑ United States v. Erdman, 953 F.2d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1992)
  7. ↑ "Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act". Federal Trade Commission Website. Archived from the original on 2012-08-01. Retrieved 2016-02-07.
  8. ↑ Compton, Allie (August 7, 2012). "Largest Identity Theft Case In U.S. History". The Huffington Post.
  9. ↑ Goldman, Jeff (August 6, 2012). "Identity Theft Costs IRS Billions Every Year". eSecurity Planet.
  10. ↑ King, Brett (August 3, 2011). "US Banks wasting Billions on preventable fraud". Banking For Tomorrow.
  11. ↑ "Identity Theft - Trends, Patterns and Typologies Reported in Suspicious Activity Reports" (PDF). Depository Institutions - Financial Crimes Enforcement Network - US Government. August 2010.
  12. ↑ Head, Subha (January 2012). "Retail Banking Fraud Management: Challenges and Emerging Alternatives".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.