Identity Theft Laws: Federal Rules and State Penalties
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 13, 2026). · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Identity theft is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1028, and every state also has its own identity theft or identity fraud statute layered on top of it. If someone has used your name, Social Security number, or other identifying information without your permission, both bodies of law give you specific tools to fight back, and the Federal Trade Commission runs a free recovery site built for exactly this situation.
This hub covers what identity theft means under federal and state law, the FTC's free recovery process at IdentityTheft.gov, the warning signs that your information has already been misused, a scam the FTC specifically warned about in January 2026, and a state-by-state look at how each state penalizes the crime. For the specific mechanics of reporting identity theft, freezing your credit versus placing a fraud alert, or tax-related identity theft, see the dedicated pages linked throughout this hub and in the Related Resources section below.
What Identity Theft Means Under Federal and State Law
«Identity theft» is not one single crime with one definition nationwide. At the federal level, 18 U.S.C. § 1028 criminalizes producing or transferring false identification documents, possessing five or more identification documents with intent to use or transfer them unlawfully, and knowingly using another person's «means of identification» without lawful authority to commit an unlawful act. Nearly every state also has its own identity theft or identity fraud statute, and the definitions do not line up with each other or with the federal statute. Some states define the offense around the dollar value the offender obtained; others tier it by the severity of the underlying crime the offender committed while impersonating the victim, or by the number of people victimized. There is no single national identity theft law that applies the same way everywhere in the country, and a claim that federal law resolves a specific identity theft question is usually incomplete without also checking the relevant state statute.
Federal penalties under § 1028 range from up to 5 years for basic unauthorized-use or possession offenses, up to 15 years for producing or transferring more than five false identification documents or for identity theft that nets the offender $1,000 or more, up to 20 years if the offense facilitated drug trafficking or a violent crime or followed a prior conviction under the statute, and up to 30 years if it facilitated an act of terrorism. A related statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, defines «aggravated identity theft» and adds an additional mandatory prison term, served consecutively, when identity theft is committed in furtherance of certain other federal felonies. Confirm the exact current length of that additional term directly against the statute's text before relying on a specific number, since federal sentencing provisions are amended from time to time.
Every state's own penalty structure, current as of this page's last verification date, is listed in the table further down this page.
The FTC's Free Recovery Site: IdentityTheft.gov
If you believe your identity has already been misused, not merely exposed in a data breach, IdentityTheft.gov is the place to start. It is a free site run by the Federal Trade Commission, and its own homepage describes the process in three steps: "Tell us what happened. We'll ask some questions about your situation... Get a recovery plan. We'll use that info to create a personal recovery plan... Put your plan into action. If you create an account, we'll walk you through each recovery step, update your plan as needed, track your progress, and pre-fill forms and letters for you." Creating an account is optional but unlocks the pre-filled letters and step tracking, which most victims find worth the few minutes it takes.
The recovery plan IdentityTheft.gov generates is tailored to what actually happened. Someone whose credit card was opened in their name gets a different plan than someone whose tax return was rejected as a duplicate, or someone whose child's Social Security number turned up on a new utility account. See our guide to how to report identity theft for what an FTC Identity Theft Report actually does once you have one, including the specific federal law that lets you use it to get fraudulent information removed from your credit report.
IdentityTheft.gov's own banner carries a warning worth repeating here: "It is illegal to knowingly file a false identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission. Filing a false report may result in a fine, imprisonment, or both." That warning exists in part because of a scheme the FTC specifically flagged in early 2026, covered below.
Warning Signs Your Identity Has Already Been Misused
Identity theft often surfaces somewhere other than where it actually happened. IdentityTheft.gov lists nine specific warning signs: unexplained withdrawals from your bank account; bills or mail that stops arriving as expected; merchants who refuse your checks; debt collectors calling about debts that are not yours; unfamiliar accounts or charges on your credit report; medical providers billing you for services you never received; a health plan rejecting a legitimate claim because you supposedly already reached a benefits limit; a health plan refusing to cover you because your records show a condition you do not have; and the IRS notifying you that more than one tax return was filed in your name, or that you have income from an employer you have never worked for.
One warning sign surprises most people: in some cases a thief has given a victim's name to police during an arrest, so the first sign of identity theft is a summons or a warrant for something the real person never did. If any of these signs apply to you, IdentityTheft.gov's recovery plan is built to address each one specifically, and our guide to how to report identity theft walks through what happens next.
If the identity theft you are dealing with traces back to a specific company's data breach rather than an unknown source, our guides on what to do after a data breach and how to freeze your credit for free cover that situation in full, step-by-step depth.
The "File a False Report to Erase Your Debt" Scam
In a consumer alert dated January 5, 2026, the FTC warned that social media influencers were coaching people to file a false identity theft report as a way to remove accurate debt from their credit report, a scheme sometimes marketed as a «credit sweep.» The FTC's own language leaves no ambiguity: "Some online influencers are telling people they have a fix: file a false identity theft report about a debt they owe. That's advice not to take. Filing a false identity theft report may leave you worse off, and it's a crime that could get you a fine, imprisonment, or both." The FTC adds plainly that "credit repair companies can't legally remove information from your credit report if it's accurate and current."
This scheme trades on a real, legitimate right, the ability to get fraudulent information blocked from your credit report after filing an actual FTC Identity Theft Report, and misapplies it to debt that genuinely belongs to the person filing. The block mechanic exists for real identity theft victims. Using it to erase a debt you actually owe is fraud on the credit bureau and on the FTC itself, and it can expose you to criminal liability on top of the debt you started with. If a debt on your credit report is inaccurate, outdated, or otherwise disputable, real tools exist: a standard credit-report dispute, negotiating directly with the creditor, or, if the debt truly is the product of identity theft, an actual FTC Identity Theft Report. Filing a false one is not among them.
Identity Theft Laws by State
Every state criminalizes identity theft, but the specific statute, and the penalty attached to it, differs meaningfully from state to state. The table below lists each state's primary identity theft or identity fraud statute and its penalty classification where that classification could be confirmed against the statutory text. States amend criminal statutes regularly, and penalty tiers are frequently set by dollar value, victim count, or repeat-offense status, so treat this table as a starting point and confirm the current text against your state's official code before relying on a specific classification for anything consequential.
The table below covers 9 states in the Northeast.
| State | Statute | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-129a, 53a-129b | Class B felony (1st degree); lower degrees exist |
| Maine | 17-A M.R.S. § 905-A | Class D crime |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 37E* | Not confirmed* |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 638:26 | Class A felony |
| New Jersey | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:21-17 | 4th to 2nd degree crime by value or victim count |
| New York | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 190.78 to 190.80 | Felony, degree set by underlying offense |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4120* | Not confirmed* |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-49.1-3 | Felony |
| Vermont | 13 V.S.A. § 2030* | Not confirmed* |
The table below covers 12 states in the Midwest.
| State | Statute | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/16-30 | Felony, Class 4 and up by value |
| Indiana | Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3.5 | Level 6 felony (Level 5 if aggravated) |
| Iowa | Iowa Code § 715A.8 | Class C or D felony, or aggravated misdemeanor by value |
| Kansas | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6107 | Nonperson felony, severity level 8 (base) |
| Michigan | Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.65, 445.69 (Identity Theft Protection Act) | Felony: up to 5 years / $25,000 fine (1st offense); up to 10 years / $50,000 (2nd); up to 15 years / $75,000 (3rd or subsequent) |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 609.527 | Sentenced under § 609.52, subd. 3 by victim count and loss: up to 90 days (one victim, $250 or less) to up to 20 years (8 or more victims, or loss over $35,000) |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.223 | Misdemeanor to Class C felony by value |
| Nebraska | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-639* | Not confirmed* |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-23-11 | Class B or C felony by value; Class A felony on repeat offense |
| Ohio | Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.49 | Felony of the fifth degree (base tier) |
| South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws § 22-40-8 | Class 6 felony |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Stat. § 943.201 | Class H felony |
The table below covers 16 states in the South, plus the District of Columbia.
| State | Statute | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Ala. Code § 13A-8-192 | Class B felony |
| Arkansas | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-227* | Not confirmed* |
| Delaware | Del. Code tit. 11, § 854 | Class D felony |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Code § 22-3227.03 | Up to 10 years (loss $1,000 or more); up to 180 days (lesser) |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 817.568 | Felony, 3rd to 1st degree by tier |
| Georgia | O.C.G.A. §§ 16-9-121, 16-9-126 | 1 to 10 years and/or fine up to $100,000; 3 to 15 years and/or up to $250,000 (second or subsequent) |
| Kentucky | Ky. Rev. Stat. § 514.160 | Class D felony |
| Louisiana | La. Rev. Stat. § 14:67.16* | Not confirmed* |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Crim. Law § 8-301 | Felony, up to 5, 10, or 20 years by value |
| Mississippi | Miss. Code Ann. § 97-45-19* | Felony, 2 to 15 years and/or up to $10,000 fine; misdemeanor (up to 6 months and/or $1,000) if the amount involved is under $250* |
| North Carolina | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 | Felony |
| Oklahoma | Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1533.1* | Not confirmed* |
| South Carolina | S.C. Code Ann. § 16-13-510 | Felony, up to 10 years |
| Tennessee | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-150 | Class D felony (Class C for trafficking) |
| Texas | Tex. Penal Code § 32.51 | State jail felony to 1st degree felony by item count |
| Virginia | Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-186.3 | Class 1 misdemeanor (base); Class 6 felony (loss of $1,000 or more, or second or subsequent conviction); Class 5 felony (5 or more victims); Class 4 felony (50 or more victims) |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code § 61-3-54 | Felony, up to 5 years and/or $1,000 fine |
The table below covers 13 states in the West.
| State | Statute | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Alaska Stat. § 11.46.565 (criminal impersonation, 1st degree) | Class B felony |
| Arizona | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2008 | Class 4 felony |
| California | Cal. Penal Code § 530.5* | Not confirmed* |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-902 | Class 4 felony (Class 2 misdemeanor, lesser subsections) |
| Hawaii | Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 708-839.6 to -839.8 | Class A, B, or C felony by degree |
| Idaho | Idaho Code § 18-3126* | Not confirmed* |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-6-332* | Not confirmed* |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.463 | Category B felony (1 to 20 years); Category C variant |
| New Mexico | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-24.1 | 4th degree felony |
| Oregon | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 165.800, 165.803 | Class C felony (Class B if aggravated) |
| Utah | Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-1102 | 3rd degree felony (2nd degree if $5,000 or more, or bodily injury) |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020 | Class B felony (1st degree); 2nd degree not confirmed |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-901 | Misdemeanor (smaller amounts); felony (larger amounts) |
* Statute citation identified in the recordingLaw legal research corpus. The specific penalty classification for this offense was not independently confirmed against the full statutory text before this page's publication. Consult the official state code, linked from your state legislature's website, for the current penalty.
For the federal rights that apply regardless of which state you live in, including a free credit freeze, a fraud alert, and getting fraudulent information blocked from your credit report, see how to report identity theft and credit freeze vs. fraud alert.
Information last verified on 2026-08-13, drawn directly from IdentityTheft.gov, 18 U.S.C. § 1028, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c-1 and 1681c-2, and the recordingLaw legal research corpus for the state penalty table. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Related Resources
- How to Report Identity Theft
- Credit Freeze vs. Fraud Alert
- Tax Identity Theft: Form 14039 and the IP PIN Program
- Child Identity Theft: Warning Signs and the Minor Freeze Right
- Medical Identity Theft: HIPAA Rights and Fixing Your Records
- Synthetic Identity Theft: How It Works
- How to Freeze Your Credit After a Data Breach (Free)
- What To Do After a Data Breach: A Step-by-Step Guide
Last updated: 2026-08-13.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is identity theft under federal law?
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028, identity theft includes knowingly using another person's means of identification, such as a Social Security number or other identifying information, without lawful authority to commit or attempt an unlawful act. Nearly every state also criminalizes identity theft under its own, separately worded statute.
Is identity theft a felony?
In most states, yes, though the exact classification depends on the dollar amount involved, the number of victims, and whether it is a repeat offense. A handful of states treat small first-time offenses as a misdemeanor. See the state table above for each state's classification.
What is IdentityTheft.gov and is it free to use?
IdentityTheft.gov is a free website run by the Federal Trade Commission that asks what happened, builds a personalized recovery plan, and, if you create an account, pre-fills the letters and forms most victims need and tracks your recovery progress.
Do I need to file a police report for identity theft?
An FTC Identity Theft Report from IdentityTheft.gov is often enough for credit bureau and creditor disputes on its own. Some businesses or specific legal processes may still require an actual police report, particularly if you have information identifying a suspect. See our guide to reporting identity theft for the full picture.
Is it a crime to file a false identity theft report?
Yes. IdentityTheft.gov states directly that it is illegal to knowingly file a false identity theft report with the FTC, and doing so may result in a fine, imprisonment, or both. The FTC warned in January 2026 about a scheme that coaches people to do exactly this to try to erase real debt.
What rights do identity theft victims have under federal law?
Federal law gives victims the right to a free credit freeze, a one-year fraud alert (or a seven-year extended alert with an FTC report), free credit reports, and the ability to get fraudulent information blocked from a credit report under FCRA § 605B, among other protections.
Can a child be a victim of identity theft?
Yes. The FTC notes that a child's Social Security number can be used to open accounts, apply for government benefits, or sign up for utility service in the child's name, and that this often goes undetected for years because a child normally has no credit file at all to monitor.
Updates
Corrected two details of the federal penalty description under 18 U.S.C. § 1028 and filled in the previously unconfirmed Alaska, Georgia, Minnesota, and Virginia rows of the state penalty table after re-checking each statute's current text.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 1028Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and informationIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority; knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents; knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,360 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Christensen (2016) affirmed Section 1028(a)(7) identity-theft convictions after the CFAA predicates were set aside, holding intent to violate California Penal Code 502 was a valid alternative predicate. United States v. Campa (2008) upheld a 1028(a)(3) conviction on constructive possession of counterfeit documents.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 646)“…tion documents, authentica tion features, and information.” 18 U. S. C. §1028. The title of another provision (the pro…”
- United States v. George Lloyd Pregent (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1999, 190 F.3d 279)“…zed United States identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028 (a)(1) (West Supp.1999), knowingly prod…”
- United States v. Lesmarge Valnor (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2006, 451 F.3d 744)✓Valnor charged $400 to $500 a head to have a Florida DMV examiner issue fraudulent driver's licenses; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a sentence above the advisory range for his Section 1028(f) conspiracy, noting it fell far below Section 1028(b)(1)(A)'s 15-year maximum.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Indiana Identity Theft Laws, Alabama Identity Theft Laws: Statute, Reporting, and Your Rights, Arizona Identity Theft Laws: A.R.S. 13-2008 Penalties and Rights
§ 1028AAggravated identity theftIn force
Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years. Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person or a false identification document shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,770 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 646)“…ul authority, a means of identification of another person.” 18 U. S. C. §1028A(a)(1) (emphasis added). After petitione…”
- United States v. Barrington (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2011, 648 F.3d 1178)“…d three counts of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A and 2. Jacquette and Secrease pleaded g…”
- United States v. Junaidu Savage (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2018, 885 F.3d 212)“…Count One), and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Counts Two and Three). In March 2016,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of Alabama 1975, Title 13A: Criminal Code.
§ 13A-8-192Identity Theft.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) A person commits the crime of identity theft if, without the authorization, consent, or permission of the victim, and with the intent to defraud for his or her own benefit or the benefit of a third person, he or she does any of the following: (1) Obtains, records, or accesses identifying information that would assist in accessing financial resources, obtaining identification documents, or obtaining benefits of the victim. (2) Obtains goods or services through the use of identifying information of the victim. (3) Obtains identification documents in the victim’s name. (4) Obtains employment through the use of identifying information of the victim. (b) Identity theft is a Class B felony. (c) This section shall not apply when a person obtains the identity of another person to misrepresent his or her age for the sole purpose of obtaining alcoholic beverages, tobacco, or another privilege denied to minors. (d) Any prosecution brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced within seven years after the commission of the offense.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us
Florida Statutes
§ 817.568Criminal use of personal identification information.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Access device” means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, personal identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument identifier, or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds, other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument. (b) “Authorization” means empowerment, permission, or competence to act. (c) “Harass” means to engage in conduct directed at a specific person that is intended to cause substantial emotional distress to such person and serves no legitimate purpose. “Harass” does not mean to use personal identification information for accepted commercial purposes. The term does not include constitutionally protected conduct such as organized protests or the use of personal identification information for accepted commercial purposes.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Florida courts have addressed the reach and the proof of section 817.568. A 2023 Fifth District opinion (Spagnuolo v. Insurance Office of America) held it is a criminal statute whose individual excludes corporations and gave a company no express private cause of action. State v. Fagan applied it in reinstating an identity theft verdict.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Supreme Court of Florida 2008, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 258)✓Acting on a committee report, the Florida Supreme Court authorized standard jury instructions 20.13 and 20.17 for fraudulent use or possession of personal identification information under section 817.568(2) and (8), while expressing no opinion on their correctness.
- State v. Fagan (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2003, 857 So. 2d 320)✓A spa worker allegedly used a client's personal information to obtain credit cards mailed to her home; the court held the State's circumstantial evidence contradicted her theory that a coworker was the thief, and reinstated her identity theft verdict under this statute.
- JAY LEWIS FARROW AND FARROW LAW, P.A. vs INSURANCE OFFICE OF AMERICA, INC., JOHN K. RITENOUR, HEATH RITENOUR, JOSHUA D. CLARK, LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA D. CLARK, P.A., LOUIS SPAGNUOLO, ROY CASWELL, J. DAVID NAUGHTON, WOODROW W. POWER, ET AL. (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2023)✓A temporary injunction barred social media posts violating section 817.568; the court noted the statute is criminal and its term individual excludes corporations, so it had no application to the corporate plaintiff and gave no explicit private cause of action, and struck it.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Identity Theft Laws: Penalties, Protected Classes, and Victim Rights
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 21-6107Identity theft; identity fraud.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) Identity theft is obtaining, possessing, transferring, using, selling or purchasing any personal identifying information, or document containing the same, belonging to or issued to another person, with the intent to: (1) Defraud that person, or anyone else, in order to receive any benefit; or (2) misrepresent that person in order to subject that person to economic or bodily harm. (b) Identity fraud is: (1) Using or supplying information the person knows to be false in order to obtain a document containing any personal identifying information; or (2) altering, amending, counterfeiting, making, manufacturing or otherwise replicating any document containing personal identifying information with the intent to deceive; (c) (1) Identity theft is a: (A) Severity level 8, nonperson felony, except as provided in subsection (c)(1)(B); and (B) severity level 5, nonperson felony if the monetary loss to the victim or victims is more than $100,000. (2) Identity fraud is a severity level 8, nonperson felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Valdiviezo-Martinez (2021) held an employee can commit identity theft under K.S.A. 21-6107 by deceiving an employer with another’s Social Security number to obtain employment and its benefits, that the offense is continuing, and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Warsame (2025) applied those elements.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Valdiviezo-Martinez (Supreme Court of Kansas 2021, 486 P.3d 1256)✓A restaurant worker used another man's Social Security number on his W-4 and drew paychecks for years; the court held he obtained a benefit by deceiving his employer even though he earned the wages, called 21-6107 a continuing offense, and affirmed.
- In re Wrongful Conviction of Warsame (Supreme Court of Kansas 2025, 563 P.3d 1281)✓Warsame used stolen credit cards to buy gift cards, and his identity theft convictions were vacated for naming the wrong victim; the court held wrongful conviction compensation turns on the statutory elements of 21-6107, which he admitted meeting, so his claim failed.
- State v. Garcia (Supreme Court of Kansas 2017)✓Garcia used another person's Social Security number on tax forms when hired at a restaurant; the Kansas Supreme Court reversed his 21-6107 conviction as expressly preempted because that number also appeared on his federal I-9, a holding the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in 2020.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Data Privacy Laws: Breach Notification & Consumer Rights (2026), Kansas Identity Theft Laws
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 39-14-150Identity theft victims' rights.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Identity Theft Victims' Rights Act of 2004.” (b)(1) A person commits the offense of identity theft who knowingly obtains, possesses, buys, or uses, the personal identifying information of another: (A) With the intent to commit any unlawful…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sharetngov.s3.amazonaws.com
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Tennessee courts read Section 39-14-150(b) broadly. State of Tennessee v. Buford Dudley Creighton (2024) held that using another person's identifying information intending to avoid prosecution is an unlawful act under the statute; State of Tennessee v. Larry Wayne Webb (2012) held identity theft and forgery are separate offenses.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Tennessee v. Larry Wayne Webb (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2012)✓The defendant got a duplicate Corvette title by claiming the original was lost, signed the co-owner's name on it, and used the car to pay a lawyer; the court held the evidence supported his identity theft conviction and that forgery and identity theft are separate offenses.
- State of Tennessee v. Justin Darnay Graves (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2026)“…General Assembly has explicitly expanded venue. See, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-150(j)(4) (expressly providing venue is pro…”
- State of Tennessee v. Buford Dudley Creighton (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2024)✓A man gave an officer his brother's name and Social Security number to avoid prosecution; the court held the phrase any unlawful act in 39-14-150(b)(1) is not ambiguous and that using another person's identifying information to evade prosecution falls within it.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Identity Theft Laws: Treble Damages Under TCA 39-14-150
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 943: Crimes Against Property
§ 943.201Unauthorized use of an individual’s personal identifying information or documents.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) In this section: (a) “Personal identification document” means any of the following: 1. A document containing personal identifying information. 2. An individual’s card or plate, if it can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value or benefit, or if it can be used to initiate a transfer of funds. 3. Any other device that is unique to, assigned to, or belongs to an individual and that is intended to be used to access services, funds, or benefits of any kind to which the individual is entitled. (b) “Personal identifying information” means any of the following information: 1. An individual’s name. 2. An individual’s address. 3. An individual’s telephone number. 4. The unique identifying driver number assigned to the individual by the department of transportation under s. 343.17 (3) (a) 4. 5. An individual’s social security number. 6. An individual’s employer or place of employment. 7. An identification number assigned to an individual by his or her employer. 8. The maiden name of an individual’s mother. 9. The identifying number of a depository account, as defined in s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Wisconsin courts have read Wis. Stat. 943.201 broadly. State v. Peters (2003) held that using another person's identity to obtain lower bail is obtaining credit or money under sub. (2), rejecting a commercial-value limit. State v. Ramirez (2001) held the offense is a continuing one and that wages are a thing of value.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Peters (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2003, 263 Wis. 2d 475)✓Peters gave police the name of her husband's ex-wife after a shoplifting arrest and used it to argue for lower bail; the Wisconsin Supreme Court held bail is a form of credit or money, so taking an identity to obtain lower bail falls within the identity theft statute.
- State v. Ramirez (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2001, 246 Wis. 2d 802)✓Ramirez used another man's social security number to get a job before the statute took effect and kept drawing wages after it did; the court held he obtained money, not just a job, and that section 943.201(2) creates a continuing offense, so applying it was not ex post facto.
- State v. Baron (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2009, 318 Wis. 2d 60)✓Baron got into his supervisor's e-mail account and mailed out messages exposing an affair, made to look as if the supervisor sent them; the court held section 943.201(2)(c), as applied to him, is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest and does not violate free speech.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Identity Theft Laws: Penalties and Treble Damages
West Virginia Code
§ 61-3-54Taking identity of another person; penalty.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
Any person who knowingly takes the name, birth date, social security number, or other identifying information of another person, without the consent of that other person, with the intent to fraudulently represent that he or she is the other person for the purpose of making financial or credit transactions in the other person’s name, or for the purpose of gaining employment, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary not more than five years, or fined not more than $1,000, or both: Provided, That the provisions of this section do not apply to any person who obtains another person’s drivers license or other form of identification for the sole purpose of misrepresenting his or her age.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bell v. Moore (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 2025)“…n of the West Virginia Identity Theft Statute pursuant to W. Va. Code § 61-3-54. (Id. at 3-4) The Plaintiff asks f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: West Virginia Data Privacy Laws: Breach Notification & Consumer Rights (2026), West Virginia Identity Theft Laws: Penalties and Victim Rights
Code of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally
§ 18.2-186.3Identity theft; penalty; restitution; victim assistanceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. It shall be unlawful for any person, without the authorization or permission of the person or persons who are the subjects of the identifying information, with the intent to defraud, for his own use or the use of a third person, to: 1. Obtain, record, or access identifying information which is not available to the general public that would assist in accessing financial resources, obtaining identification documents, or obtaining benefits of such other person; 2. Obtain money, credit, loans, goods, or services through the use of identifying information of such other person; 3. Obtain identification documents in such other person's name; or 4. Obtain, record, or access identifying information while impersonating a law-enforcement officer or an official of the government of the Commonwealth. B. It shall be unlawful for any person without the authorization or permission of the person who is the subject of the identifying information, with the intent to sell or distribute the information to another to: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal immigration rulings read Virginia Code 18.2-186.3. Jose Salazar v. Merrick Garland (2023) held subsection (A)(2), with its intent-to-defraud element, is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Oscar Perdomo Ulloa v. Pamela Bondi (2026) reaffirmed that and, for removal only, read a Class 1 misdemeanor as a one-year crime.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jose Salazar v. Merrick Garland (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2023, 56 F.4th 374)✓Salazar used a Social Security number he said he made up, but which belonged to a real Virginian, on a loan application. The Fourth Circuit held a conviction under Section 18.2-186.3(A)(2), which requires intent to defraud, is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Hinton v. Trans Union, LLC (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2009, 654 F. Supp. 2d 440)“…m; (ii) violation of Virginia credit reporting laws, namely Va.Code § 18.2-186.3 et seq.; (iii) a claim for…”
- Trail v. Local 2850 Uaw United Defense Workers of America (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2013, 710 F.3d 541)“…in March 2009, for felony iden- tity theft, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-186.3. General Dynamics suspended Trail’s emp…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Identity Theft Laws: Penalties and the Identity Theft Passport
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE
§ 609.527IDENTITY THEFTIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given them in this subdivision. (b) "Direct victim" means any person or entity described in section 611A.01, paragraph (b), whose identity has been transferred, used, or possessed in violation of this section. (c) "False pretense" means any false, fictitious, misleading, or fraudulent information or pretense or pretext depicting or including or deceptively similar to the name, logo, website address, email address, postal address, telephone number, or any other identifying information of a for-profit or not-for-profit business or organization or of a government agency, to which the user has no legitimate claim of right. (d) "Financial institution" has the meaning given in section 13A.01, subdivision 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Anderson v. State (2011) read section 609.527, subd. 4(b) as mandating at least $1,000 per direct victim and held that victim need not file a loss affidavit. State v. Chao Moua (2016) held the minimum satisfies procedural due process and reaches victims whose name and private identifying information were stolen, even absent economic loss.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Anderson v. State (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2011, 794 N.W.2d 137)✓Anderson, convicted of aiding identity theft of eight or more victims, challenged $1,000-per-victim restitution to 28 direct victims though 21 filed no loss affidavits; the court held section 609.527, subd. 4 mandates that floor and controls over the general restitution statute.
- State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998). (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2016, 874 N.W.2d 812)“…inimum restitution provision of the identity-theft statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.527 (2012), does not violate a defendant’s…”
- State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2017, 890 N.W.2d 135)“…entity theft involving more than eight direct victims. See Minn. Stat. § 609.527, subds. 2, 3(5) (2014). He admitted tha…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Identity Theft Laws: Penalties and Victim Rights
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 16-9-121Elements of offense.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) A person commits the offense of identity fraud when he or she willfully and fraudulently: (1) Without authorization or consent, uses or possesses with intent to fraudulently use identifying information concerning a person; (2) Uses identifying information of an individual under 18 years old…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 54 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Martinez v. State (2013) reversed an identity fraud conviction, holding the 2007 text of OCGA 16-9-121 reached only a natural 'individual,' not a corporate victim. Perez v. ATLANTA CHECK CASHERS, INC. (2010) applied (a)(1) civilly, affirming denial of class certification because lack of consent needed individualized proof.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Martinez v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2013, 325 Ga. App. 267)✓Martinez cashed counterfeit payroll checks and was convicted of identity fraud for using the bank account number of Labor Staffing, Inc.; the court held the 2007 version of the statute reached only the information of "an individual," not a corporation, and reversed that count.
- State v. Mayze (Supreme Court of Georgia 2005, 280 Ga. 5)✓Mayze allegedly used information from a wallet lost in Fulton County to reach a Clayton County resident's credit history in DeKalb County; read with the venue provision, the statute defines an offense that occurs where the victim lives, so Clayton County venue was proper.
- Perez v. ATLANTA CHECK CASHERS, INC. (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2010, 302 Ga. App. 864)✓A former employee sued over insurance subagent license applications filed with his personal data and a forged signature; applying the statute's "without authorization or consent" element, the court affirmed denial of class certification because consent needed individual proof.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Identity Theft Laws: Identity Fraud Statute and Victim Resources
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- IdentityTheft.gov (Federal Trade Commission)(identitytheft.gov).gov
- Know Your Rights (IdentityTheft.gov / FTC)(identitytheft.gov).gov
- Warning Signs of Identity Theft (IdentityTheft.gov / FTC)(identitytheft.gov).gov
- FTC Consumer Alert: Influencers Are Pushing an Illegal Trick to “Fix” Your Credit Report (Jan. 5, 2026)(consumer.ftc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 1028, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)
- 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1, Identity Theft Prevention; Fraud Alerts and Active Duty Alerts (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)
- 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2, Block of Information Resulting From Identity Theft (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1028, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents (U.S. Government Publishing Office)(govinfo.gov)
- Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-186.3, Identity Theft; Penalty; Restitution; Victim Assistance (Virginia Law Portal)(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Minn. Stat. § 609.527, Identity Theft (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes)(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 3, Theft Sentencing Tiers (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes)(revisor.mn.gov)
- Alaska Stat. § 11.46.565, Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree (Alaska State Legislature)(akleg.gov)
- O.C.G.A. § 16-9-126, Penalty for Violations (2025 Code of Georgia)(law.justia.com)