Disturbing aspect of ID Theft

[radhak]

So Mayor Bloomberg is an ID theft attempt victim.
Frankly, it was a very amateurish attempt : the guy tried for amounts of such large size that even genuine checks would have taken long and even as much scrutiny. Idiot.

But what I was more disturbed about, was the comment at the bottom of the page by a Dave Britton :

My wife and I have been plagued with a catch-22 situation that we can’t get the police to issue a police report needed to get documentation for the theft of my wife’s identity because we don’t have documentation of the identity theft. When someone uses your social security number to get credit and then skips on the bills, you don’t see those bills, they get sent to the thief’s erstwhile address. You don’t find out until the creditors have sold the account to a collection agency that does not have the original data to document the theft, but is still willing and able to trash your credit rating. The only way to get the old documentation out of the original creditor is to have a police report.

Is that accurate? An ID theft victim is left without recourse to justice or even defence in this day and age? 5 years ago, understandable. But now?

[Slik Geek]

Not sure what the state of things is now, but my singular experience with a collection agency was less than impressive. It seems a local hospital mis-keyed a patient entry with a similar name and tied their bill into my records. When the patient didn't pay, the hospital turned the bill over to a collection agency, and I unknowingly got my credit trashed.

I was never contacted. I discovered this when I attempted to get a credit card and was denied for "adverse credit history".

A very simple solution, it seems to me, is to require contact at the address of record on the credit history file when a person's credit record is either added to (in the case of a new account) or "nicked", in the case of adverse credit activity.

With the significant losses in the industry, you would think that a simple, automatically generated mailing would be a small expense for creditors to reduce the number of unpaid credit lines.

[Dale In Corona]

I don't know if that is exactly correct, it has an air of truth to it, but, it also rings of urban legend because of the egregious nature of the complaint.

My best guess is that it is probably based on at least SOME fact. However we must also consider the fact that the fair credit reporting act requires both creditors and those who report credit to ensure the accuracy of the data being reported by removing any that can not be verified.

Therefore, it seems to me that unless they could either A: prove that the original debt was mine or B: remove the inaccurate information and thereby repair my credit for me, I could sue them.

But like I said, I don't really know that for sure, that’s all just a guess and my 2 cents.

Dale

[LinuxRandal]

Not to be taken seriously

A simple remedy


Make anyone caught, comitting identity theft, be legaly responsible for their victims spousal and child support, through the kids college. If I want to be cruel and unusual, make them move in the ex....



This is humor folks,

[gwyneth]

I don't know if that is exactly correct, it has an air of truth to it, but, it also rings of urban legend because of the egregious nature of the complaint.

Yes, it sounds as if something got lost in translation somewhere.

But after a careful re-read, I believe the real situation is that the wife has not explained something to her husband. Could be any of a variety of things--why her credit was bad when they met, why she doesn't have id, more nefarious things--but sounds a lot more like something the credulous husband believes.

[crokett]

With the significant losses in the industry, you would think that a simple, automatically generated mailing would be a small expense for creditors to reduce the number of unpaid credit lines.

It is actually not signifigant enough for the CC companies to make any sweeping changes. A billion here or there may seem like a lot but they figure on writing off a certain percentage of income to fraud. Until ID theft causes that percentage to get uncomfortable the CC companies won't crack down. Why should they - just give out more high-rate cards and offset the losses.

[twistsol]

Therefore, it seems to me that unless they could either A: prove that the original debt was mine or B: remove the inaccurate information and thereby repair my credit for me, I could sue them.

You are exactly correct, You can dispute it directly with the credit reporting agency and they will contact the original company reporting the bat debt. If they don't receive a response in 30 days, the item is deleted ... or at least that is the theory. There are at least two areas where theory and reality fail to meet.

1.) While there are many legitimate collection agencies that operate within the bounds of the law, there are also a number of them that don't, and will simply close up shop and open up as a new company if/when they get sued.

2.) As soon as many collection agencies realize a particular debt is invalid, they throw it into a sale portfolio and sell it with other debts to another collection agency and then it starts all over again.

Finally, the Fair Credit and Reporting Act is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. They only go after big fish, not small collection agencies.

Experian, Trans Union and Equifax are essentially insulated from lawsuits since they are simply providing information that is accepted to be true and accurate and has been reported to them by other companies, who are their real customers.

[radhak]

Yes, it sounds as if something got lost in translation somewhere.

But after a careful re-read, I believe the real situation is that the wife has not explained something to her husband. Could be any of a variety of things--why her credit was bad when they met, why she doesn't have id, more nefarious things--but sounds a lot more like something the credulous husband believes.

Ummm, I read it differently : the wife's ssn was used by somebody to borrow money, but at his address. The wife does not know it till she finds out a damaged credit history (because all the notices, collection agency letters, etc go the thief's address). She cannot have that bad credit expunged till she supplies a police report to support her claims. The cops don't give her a report till she proves her ID is stolen - which essentially means she should show one of the notices that went to the thief at his address but with her SSN; which of course she can't because she does not have any means of getting that proof. Catch-22.

The only possible fault of the wife is that her ssn was stolen, and that is not all that fault-able.

[gwyneth]

Ummm, I read it differently : the wife's ssn was used by somebody to borrow money, but at his address. The wife does not know it till she finds out a damaged credit history (because all the notices, collection agency letters, etc go the thief's address). She cannot have that bad credit expunged till she supplies a police report to support her claims. The cops don't give her a report till she proves her ID is stolen - which essentially means she should show one of the notices that went to the thief at his address but with her SSN; which of course she can't because she does not have any means of getting that proof. Catch-22.

The only possible fault of the wife is that her ssn was stolen, and that is not all that fault-able.

Well, no. That is the story the husband has accepted, and if the system worked that way it would be a catch-22. But it doesn't work that way.

Police reports do not generally need proof about anything. (Sure, they'll note that something is a ridiculous claim or 'complainee alleges little green men landed in back yard'.) They are just the police taking down a citizen's complaint.

Even if the police did need proof for the 'id theft', which they don't, any credit report showing an address that was not hers would be sufficient. Credit reports do report all the bad stuff for seven or so years, including the address at which the ignored bills were sent.

There is also an automated procedure when you dispute--forms to report "ID theft". The consequences of telling a credit bureau this if it didn't happen can be severe--but if it did happen, the police report is just part of the whole thing.

Now, often people drop the ball because the ID thief is a relative or friend and further action on the part of the credit bureau, creditors or legal authorities will implicate the specific relative or friend.

Maybe the wife under discussion has used the "catch 22" excuse to her husband to explain why all of the bills have to be in his name. Or maybe she doesn't want him to know she wrecked her own credit by running up thousands of bucks of online poker debts before they met. Or maybe she doesn't want him to see her credit report because it will reveal a couple of husbands she didn't tell him about. Or that she's got 15 credit cards that he doesn't know about. Or maybe she doesn't want him to know she won't file a police report because the thief was her kid who he hates.

There are many, many reasons why she might tell her husband about the supposed "catch-22".

This is not to minimize the real **** of identify theft and how it can ruin people's lives for years.

But for a research project a year ago I read through thousands of threads going back almost five years on several of the biggest credit repair forums. One of those forums gets something like 5,000 new posts a day. In thousands of posts about ID theft, the damage it does, fixing the damage it does, dealing with it, etc., not one person mentioned this so-called "catch-22." Nobody complained about the police not accepting info about an identity theft, even if it had happened years before, or the victim had lived in another state when it took place.

All they had to do was tell the police they'd just noticed that their ID had been stolen, or even that the credit bureau had requested a police report about it. The standard advice for people starting to fix the consequences of ID theft was to call up the police, they know why you need the report and it's never a problem.

A police report is only a record of a citizen reporting a crime. If your wallet is lifted from your pants, the police do not ask for proof before taking your report.

Requiring a police report is one of the only ways credit bureaus can prevent people from falsely reporting they don't owe money because of an ID theft. It's like an insurance company that wants the police report for a bike that was stolen--more to fight fake claims than anything else.

[mkel2000]

So Mayor Bloomberg is an ID theft attempt victim.
Frankly, it was a very amateurish attempt : the guy tried for amounts of such large size that even genuine checks would have taken long and even as much scrutiny. Idiot.

But what I was more disturbed about, was the comment at the bottom of the page by a Dave Britton :



Is that accurate? An ID theft victim is left without recourse to justice or even defence in this day and age? 5 years ago, understandable. But now?

In New York State, where this comment was apparently made, it was true until July of this year when New York implemented a law which requires law enforcement to take crime reports from identity theft victims. A similar law (which has been the model for most other states, as are California's other Identity Theft Statutes) is in place in California. Not only are police agencies in California required to take Identity Theft reports, they are also required to begin an investigation. California law also requires companies to release fraudulent credit account information to the victim or a designated police agency within 10 days or face stiff civil and criminal penalties. A victim of Identity Theft can submit a copy of the crime report and a letter outlining the items on their credit report that are fraudulent and the credit reporting agencies have 30 days to remove those items.

Having dealt with victims from many states while investigating major Identity Theft operations, I can tell you that few of the states have such laws in place to protect the victims. Many states are in the process of implementing those laws, but the process takes time. I still get calls from out of state victims who I contacted years ago that are still trying to clear the fraudulent information from their credit histories.

Police reports do not generally need proof about anything. (Sure, they'll note that something is a ridiculous claim or 'complainee alleges little green men landed in back yard'.) They are just the police taking down a citizen's complaint.

Even if the police did need proof for the 'id theft', which they don't, any credit report showing an address that was not hers would be sufficient. Credit reports do report all the bad stuff for seven or so years, including the address at which the ignored bills were sent.

There is also an automated procedure when you dispute--forms to report "ID theft". The consequences of telling a credit bureau this if it didn't happen can be severe--but if it did happen, the police report is just part of the whole thing.


All they had to do was tell the police they'd just noticed that their ID had been stolen, or even that the credit bureau had requested a police report about it. The standard advice for people starting to fix the consequences of ID theft was to call up the police, they know why you need the report and it's never a problem.

A police report is only a record of a citizen reporting a crime. If your wallet is lifted from your pants, the police do not ask for proof before taking your report.

I have spent the last 28 years either writing Police crime reports or investigating crimes reported in them. Police departments do no write crime reports without some evidence of probable cause that a crime has occurred. A mere complaint is not sufficient to generate a crime report, which becomes an official record. If this were the case, then there would be no time for any other law enforcement activity other than taking these "incident" reports. As I said earlier, many states do not have identity theft laws, let alone laws which require the police to take crime reports for Identity Theft-related crimes. Without those laws, a police agency would be justified in telling the victim there is no crime and that no report would be taken. The response by most agencies to the need for a report for the credit bureaus or insurance companies would justifiably be "we don't work for them."

Mark

[gwyneth]

I have spent the last 28 years either writing Police crime reports or investigating crimes reported in them. Police departments do no write crime reports without some evidence of probable cause that a crime has occurred.

Where's the probable cause if my purse is snatched and there aren't any witnesses? Or if I come home some day and my truck isn't there? It's just my word that my purse was grabbed or that I didn't let anybody I know drive or hide the truck.

[Kristofor]

The response by most agencies to the need for a report for the credit bureaus or insurance companies would justifiably be "we don't work for them."

Mark

No they work for our communities, essentially for US!

I give law enforcement a huge amount of benefit of the doubt when people want to bash them for how they do their job. The conditions they work in, the number of problems they need to solve and the people they have to work with all require needing to make hard judgment calls. But that said I think "It's not my job" is one of the worst phrases in the English language! If the officers are actively prohibited taking those calls then their civilian management (City Council, County Board, etc.) needs to add that to their priority list.

I can't imagine the police saying they were unwilling to show up or at least take the information if I went to their station. The city/county/whatever with that problem must have so much violent crime to deal with that they should be calling in the National Guard.

If it's non-violent crime that's taking too much time then I'd be interested to see which crimes they're working on, as most property crimes seem like they would be lower costs to the victim.

There are far more lives negatively impacted by identity theft than speeding and the related accidents. Admittedly the number of lives lost is a lot lower (a few suicides maybe?), but if we can afford to run the 20 squad car speeding stings I see all summer long on the freeway it would be very hard to justify not having one officer to help the people who have identity theft issues.

Kristofor.

[gwyneth]

I can't imagine the police saying they were unwilling to show up or at least take the information if I went to their station. The city/county/whatever with that problem must have so much violent crime to deal with that they should be calling in the National Guard.

Three or four times in the last couple of decades I've needed police reports for either insurance purposes or to put a theft on the record in case I later decided to file. Even in Northern District, Baltimore, which has a fair amount of violent crime and an enormous amount of property crime, the cops would spend the five or 10 minutes to take the information down.

Kristofer, I agree totally that the cops work for us. I also predict there will be some police responses to the NY Times quote saying, "what catch-22?".

Remember, the husband's statement about his wife's situation was a) the police would not take a report without proof; and b) in this situation, proof is impossible to provide. Even if the first were true (which I doubt), one page of the credit report showing an account established, used, billed, and dunned at the wrong address should suffice. That's why, IMO, it doesn't add up.

[mkel2000]

No they work for our communities, essentially for US!

I give law enforcement a huge amount of benefit of the doubt when people want to bash them for how they do their job. The conditions they work in, the number of problems they need to solve and the people they have to work with all require needing to make hard judgment calls. But that said I think "It's not my job" is one of the worst phrases in the English language! If the officers are actively prohibited taking those calls then their civilian management (City Council, County Board, etc.) needs to add that to their priority list.

I can't imagine the police saying they were unwilling to show up or at least take the information if I went to their station. The city/county/whatever with that problem must have so much violent crime to deal with that they should be calling in the National Guard.

Kristofor.

You are correct in your first statement. The issue then becomes taking a report for an actual crime, or documenting a non-crime to placate a caller. I started to respond last night to gwyneth regarding the probable cause issue, but decided against it. What I was going to respond with was a definition of probable cause, which is information that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed. I was going to say that there is no requirement in the definition for "proof."

That being said, it is the function of law enforcement to document and investigate actual crime. It is not the function of law enforcement to document incidents where there is no reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, as much as some people would like it to be. Under the scenarios given regarding complaints of Identity Theft, there are none where I would not take a report, unless there is no criminal statute available in that state to cover the crime. Every citizen complaint should be evaluated on its merits and if there is a reasonable belief that a crime (covered by existing criminal statutes) has occurred then a report should rightly be generated. In the case where no crime can be established, it does no one any good for a report to be taken. The person complaining would then believe that further action will be taken when it won't. This usually creates unwarranted feelings of not receiving an expected service when the whole issue could have been avoided by honest handling by the initial responding police agency. I have been put in the situation a few times of having to explain to someone that a crime report should have never been taken and every time have had to face an irate person. Honesty in the initial contact would have prevented the whole situation.

My responses here were intended to answer the original post's questions about Identity Theft. They are in no way intended to inflame any one's personal opinions about law enforcement and I hope they are not taken that way by anyone. I merely make an attempt to educate from a position of experience. I apologize if my statements have upset anyone, as that was not my intention. This will be my last input on this thread; if anyone wishes to discuss the issue of Identity Theft further, feel free to contact me through PM.

Mark

[radhak]

This will be my last input on this thread; if anyone wishes to discuss the issue of Identity Theft further, feel free to contact me through PM.

Mark

Uh oh...don't do that, we need your inputs . I am sure nobody is getting offended, at least not in this thread , and speaking for everybody, we all are eager to get opinions from everybody, particularly you, as you seem to have experience in law enforcement / application...?

My personal interest is to try and understand how much of a gap exists between 'by law' and 'what actually happens'.

I agree with Gwyneth that the cop 'should' make a report (maybe in 'good faith' - is there any leeway for that?), but I am very ready to believe that if tomorrow I have this situation, and the law is not very definitive (as you mentioned it is not in 48 states), with my luck I would running pillar to post trying to resolve that gap .