of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Identity theft is a pervasive crime in the modern world, causing significant financial loss and emotional distress to its victims. It involves the unauthorized use of someone else’s personal identifying information, often for financial gain or to commit other crimes. Minnesota law addresses this serious issue directly through Statute § 609.527. This comprehensive statute defines identity theft not merely as taking information, but specifically as transferring, possessing, or using an identity that isn’t one’s own with the intent to commit, aid, or abet some form of unlawful activity. It recognizes that identity theft is often a gateway crime, facilitating other offenses like fraud, theft, or forgery.
The statute is broad, covering various forms of identifying information – from names and Social Security numbers to electronic account details and access devices. It establishes a tiered penalty structure, primarily based on the number of direct victims affected or the total financial loss incurred, linking the severity to the corresponding levels in the general theft statute (§ 609.52). Additionally, § 609.527 includes specific provisions criminalizing related conduct, such as using false pretenses online to obtain identity information (phishing) and the unlawful use or possession of scanning devices or reencoders (skimming). Understanding the different facets of this law is crucial for victims seeking recourse and for individuals facing accusations under its various provisions.
Identity Theft, under Minnesota Statute § 609.527, subdivision 2, occurs when a person transfers, possesses, or uses identifying information that belongs to another individual or entity, without authorization, and does so with the specific intention of committing, helping someone else commit, or encouraging someone else to commit an “unlawful activity.” The statute defines “identity” broadly to include names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, account numbers, electronic identifiers, and telecommunication access devices. The core of the offense is the misuse of another’s identity as a tool or means to facilitate separate criminal conduct, which can range from felony offenses to specific non-felony crimes involving theft, fraud, or providing false information.
Beyond this primary definition, the statute also criminalizes specific related acts. Subdivision 5a addresses the use of “false pretense” (like fake websites or phishing emails mimicking legitimate organizations) with the intent to obtain someone else’s identity information electronically. Subdivision 5b targets the unlawful use or possession of “scanning devices” (skimmers) or “reencoders” with the intent to commit unlawful activity, criminalizing the tools often used to capture payment card or ID card data for later fraudulent use. Together, these provisions create a comprehensive framework aimed at punishing the wrongful acquisition and misuse of personal identifying information for criminal purposes in Minnesota.
Minnesota’s primary Identity Theft law is codified under Minnesota Statutes § 609.527. This statute provides detailed definitions, describes the main crime of using another’s identity for unlawful purposes, outlines related offenses involving false pretenses and scanning devices, establishes penalties often linked to the general theft statute, addresses victim restitution, and clarifies reporting and venue procedures.
Key parts of the statute include:
609.527 IDENTITY THEFT.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. [Provides detailed definitions for terms like “Direct victim,” “False pretense,” “Identity,” “Loss,” “Unlawful activity,” “Scanning device,” “Reencoder,” “Payment card,” etc.]
Subd. 2. Crime. A person who transfers, possesses, or uses an identity that is not the person’s own, with the intent to commit, aid, or abet any unlawful activity is guilty of identity theft and may be punished as provided in subdivision 3.
Subd. 3. Penalties. A person who violates subdivision 2 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the offense involves a single direct victim and the total, combined loss to the direct victim and any indirect victims is $250 or less, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (5); [Misdemeanor]
(2) if the offense involves a single direct victim and the total, combined loss to the direct victim and any indirect victims is more than $250 but not more than $500, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (4); [Gross Misdemeanor]
(3) if the offense involves two or three direct victims or the total, combined loss to the direct and indirect victims is more than $500 but not more than $2,500, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (3); [Felony – 5 yrs/$10k]
(4) if the offense involves more than three but not more than seven direct victims, or if the total combined loss to the direct and indirect victims is more than $2,500, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (2); [Felony – 10 yrs/$20k]
(5) if the offense involves eight or more direct victims, or if the total, combined loss to the direct and indirect victims is more than $35,000, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (1); [Felony – 20 yrs/$100k] and
(6) if the offense is related to possession or distribution of pornographic work in violation of section 617.246 or 617.247, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (1). [Felony – 20 yrs/$100k]
Subd. 5a. Crime of electronic use of false pretense to obtain identity. (a) A person who, with intent to obtain the identity of another, uses a false pretense in an email to another person or in a web page, electronic communication, advertisement, or any other communication on the Internet, is guilty of a crime.
(b) Whoever commits such offense may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
[…]
Subd. 5b. Unlawful possession or use of scanning device or reencoder. (a) A person who uses a scanning device or reencoder without permission of the cardholder of the card from which the information is being scanned or reencoded, with the intent to commit, aid, or abet any unlawful activity, is guilty of a crime.
(b) A person who possesses, with the intent to commit, aid, or abet any unlawful activity, any device, apparatus, equipment, software, material, good, property, or supply that is designed or adapted for use as a scanning device or a reencoder is guilty of a crime.
(c) Whoever commits an offense under paragraph (a) or (b) may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
[…]
(Note: Subdivisions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 contain further details on definitions, restitution, reporting, venue, aggregation, and information release not fully quoted here for brevity).
To secure a conviction for the primary crime of identity theft under Minnesota Statute § 609.527, subdivision 2, the prosecution must prove each of the following distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements focus on the act of controlling another’s identity coupled with a specific criminal purpose. Failure to establish any one element means the defendant cannot be found guilty of this specific offense, though other related charges might apply depending on the facts.
The penalties for identity theft under Minnesota Statute § 609.527 vary significantly, primarily depending on the number of direct victims impacted and the total financial loss caused to both direct and indirect victims. The statute creates a tiered structure, linking the penalties for the main identity theft crime (Subd. 2) to the sentencing levels established in the general theft statute (§ 609.52, subd. 3). Related offenses under subdivisions 5a and 5b carry separate felony penalties.
The severity escalates based on victims/loss:
The statute allows aggregation of losses or victims over a six-month period (Subd. 7). Mandatory minimum restitution of $1,000 per direct victim is also required (Subd. 4).
Identity theft under § 609.527 covers a wide spectrum of activities involving the misuse of personal information for illicit purposes. Examining specific examples helps illustrate how different actions can trigger charges under the main identity theft provision (Subd. 2) or the related offenses concerning false pretenses (Subd. 5a) and skimming devices (Subd. 5b). The key often lies in linking the possession or use of identity information to an intended unlawful act.
These scenarios demonstrate the varied ways identity theft manifests – from direct financial fraud using stolen numbers to sophisticated electronic schemes for harvesting data or using devices to capture information. The law aims to address these diverse methods by focusing on the unauthorized control of identity coupled with criminal intent, or the specific acts of phishing or using skimming technology.
Alex obtains a list of stolen credit card numbers, names, and security codes through an illicit online forum. Alex then uses one of these stolen card numbers and the associated name online to purchase $600 worth of electronics, intending to have them shipped to a drop address and resell them. The card belongs to a real person, Victim A.
Alex has committed identity theft under § 609.527, subd. 2. Alex possessed and used an identity (name, account number) that was not Alex’s own. This was done with the intent to commit an unlawful activity, specifically theft (§ 609.52) by obtaining property through false representation (using the stolen card). Since the loss ($600) is more than $500 but not more than $2,500 (and involves one direct victim), Alex faces felony penalties under § 609.527, subd. 3(3).
Brenda finds a discarded wallet containing Victim B’s driver’s license and Social Security card. Brenda uses Victim B’s name, date of birth, and Social Security number to apply for several high-interest online loans, intending to take the cash and default on the loans. The total amount of loans applied for (representing potential loss) is $5,000.
Brenda has violated § 609.527, subd. 2. She possessed and used Victim B’s identity (name, DOB, SSN) with the intent to commit unlawful activity, namely theft by false representation or swindle (§ 609.52) by fraudulently obtaining loan funds. Even if the loans weren’t all approved, the intent and use are key. Since the potential loss ($5,000) falls within the “more than $2,500” category (even with one victim), Brenda faces felony penalties under § 609.527, subd. 3(4).
Charles sends out thousands of emails designed to look exactly like official communications from a major bank. The emails falsely claim the recipient’s account has been compromised and directs them to click a link to verify their information. The link leads to a fake website, visually identical to the bank’s site, which prompts users to enter their username, password, account number, and SSN. Charles’s intent is solely to harvest these credentials (identities).
Charles is guilty under § 609.527, subd. 5a. He used a false pretense (fake email and website mimicking a bank) with the clear intent to obtain the identity information of others. It doesn’t matter if he successfully obtained anyone’s identity or used it; the act of using the false pretense with intent is the crime itself under this subdivision. He faces felony penalties of up to 5 years / $10,000 fine.
Police execute a search warrant on David’s apartment based on suspected involvement in financial fraud. Inside, they find several electronic devices specifically designed to be covertly attached to gas pumps or ATMs to capture payment card information (scanning devices/skimmers). They also find laptops with software for reading and storing the captured data, and evidence suggesting David planned to use the captured data to create counterfeit cards.
David can be charged under § 609.527, subd. 5b(b). He possessed devices designed or adapted for use as scanning devices. The circumstances (multiple devices, related software, evidence of intended fraudulent use) strongly indicate he possessed them with the intent to commit, aid, or abet unlawful activity (likely theft/fraud). This is a felony punishable by up to 5 years / $10,000 fine, even if he hadn’t successfully used the devices yet.
Identity theft charges under Minnesota Statute § 609.527 can range from misdemeanors to serious felonies, carrying significant penalties including potential prison time, hefty fines, and mandatory restitution. However, the prosecution must prove each specific element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. For the main crime under Subdivision 2, this includes proving the transfer, possession, or use of another’s identity and the specific intent to commit, aid, or abet an unlawful activity. For related crimes under Subdivisions 5a and 5b, specific intents related to false pretenses or device use must be shown. This burden on the prosecution creates opportunities for various defense strategies.
An effective defense requires a thorough examination of the facts and evidence presented by the state. Did the accused actually possess or use the identity information? Was the information truly the “identity of another”? Crucially, can the state prove the required criminal intent linked to an underlying unlawful activity, or was the possession or use innocent, accidental, or authorized? Challenging the state’s evidence on these key elements, along with exploring procedural defenses or issues with how evidence was obtained, forms the core of defending against identity theft allegations in Minnesota.
This is a primary defense against charges under § 609.527 subd. 2 (main ID theft) and subd. 5b (possession/use of skimmers/reencoders). The prosecution must prove the defendant acted with the specific intent to commit, aid, or abet an unlawful activity (felony, or specific theft/fraud non-felonies). The defense argues this intent was absent.
The defense challenges the prosecution’s evidence regarding the fundamental act required by Subdivision 2 – that the defendant actually transferred, possessed, or used the identity information.
This defense argues that the identity information involved either wasn’t legally considered the “identity of another” or that the defendant had permission or authorization to use it.
For charges under Subdivision 5a (electronic use of false pretense), defenses focus on the nature of the communication and the defendant’s intent.
It’s transferring, possessing, or using an identity that isn’t yours (like a name, SSN, account number) with the specific intent to commit, help commit, or encourage someone else to commit an unlawful activity (like theft, fraud, or any felony).
The definition is broad: name, Social Security number, date of birth, driver’s license number, passport number, taxpayer ID, unique electronic ID/address/account/routing numbers, or telecommunication access info.
It includes any state or federal felony, plus specific non-felony violations involving theft, swindle, forgery, fraud, or giving false info to public officials. The identity theft must be linked to committing one of these.
Penalties for the main ID theft crime (Subd. 2) depend on the number of direct victims or the total financial loss, ranging from a misdemeanor (1 victim, loss <=$250) to a 20-year felony (8+ victims or loss >$35,000). The penalties reference the tiers in the general theft statute (§ 609.52, subd. 3).
Yes. Subdivision 4 requires the court to order anyone convicted under Subd. 2 to pay restitution of at least $1,000 to each direct victim, in addition to covering actual losses.
This covers acts like phishing – using fake emails, websites, or other internet communications that mimic legitimate businesses or government agencies with the intent to trick people into revealing their identity information. This is a felony punishable by up to 5 years / $10,000 fine.
This makes it a felony (up to 5 years / $10,000 fine) to either: 1) Use a device (like a skimmer) to capture card information without the cardholder’s permission, with intent for unlawful activity, OR 2) Possess such a device (skimmer or reencoder) with the intent to use it for unlawful activity.
Under Subd. 2, mere possession is not enough. The prosecution must also prove you possessed it with the intent to commit, aid, or abet an unlawful activity. Without proof of that criminal intent, possession alone may not violate this specific statute.
A direct victim is the person or entity whose identity was actually transferred, possessed, or used. An indirect victim is anyone else who suffers a loss as a result of the identity theft (e.g., a bank that covers fraudulent charges, a business that ships goods based on a fraudulent order). Both victims’ losses are considered for penalty levels.
Venue is broad under Subd. 6. Prosecution can occur where the offense happened, where the direct or indirect victim resides or does business, or (for false pretense/skimming) where the person whose identity was sought/obtained resides.
Yes. Subdivision 7 allows aggregation of losses or the number of victims over any six-month period to determine the penalty level under Subdivision 3.
Subdivision 5 encourages victims to report the crime to their local law enforcement agency, regardless of where the crime occurred. The agency must take a report and provide a copy. You should also contact banks, credit card companies, and credit reporting agencies. Resources like the FTC’s IdentityTheft.gov are also helpful.
Yes. The definition of “identity” includes information identifying a specific “entity” as well as an individual. Using a business’s identity (e.g., its name, tax ID, bank accounts) without authorization for unlawful activity can constitute identity theft.
Yes, identity theft convictions (misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony) are subject to Minnesota’s general expungement laws. Eligibility depends on the conviction level, completion of sentence, waiting periods, and other statutory factors.
Using a purely fictitious identity generally wouldn’t violate § 609.527, subd. 2, which requires using the identity “of another.” However, using a fake name to commit fraud or theft could still be prosecuted under other statutes like theft by false representation (§ 609.52) or forgery (§ 609.63).
An identity theft conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.527 can cast a long shadow over an individual’s future, carrying consequences far beyond the immediate sentence. As these offenses often involve dishonesty and financial harm, and frequently rise to felony levels, the collateral impacts are particularly severe and enduring.
Most identity theft convictions under § 609.527 result in felony-level offenses due to the penalty structure based on victim count or loss amount (thresholds start at $501 loss or 2 victims). A felony conviction creates a significant barrier in life. It appears on virtually all criminal background checks used for employment, housing, professional licensing, and even volunteer opportunities. The nature of identity theft – a crime of deceit often linked to financial gain – makes employers and landlords extremely wary, leading to frequent denials and limited opportunities.
Identity theft convictions often come with substantial financial burdens. Minnesota law mandates minimum restitution of $1,000 per direct victim, on top of covering all actual losses incurred by both direct and indirect victims (like banks or merchants). These restitution orders can total tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and remain enforceable debts for years. Furthermore, the underlying conduct (fraudulent accounts, unpaid debts created using stolen identities) associated with the conviction can devastate the defendant’s own credit history, making it incredibly difficult to obtain loans, credit cards, mortgages, or even basic utilities in the future.
Landlords routinely run background checks and are often hesitant to rent to individuals with felony convictions, especially those involving theft or fraud. Similarly, employers, particularly in sectors involving finance, data security, cash handling, or positions of trust, frequently disqualify applicants with identity theft convictions. This can trap individuals in cycles of unemployment and housing instability, making it difficult to rebuild their lives after serving their sentence. The conviction signals a risk that many organizations are unwilling to take.
For individuals who are not U.S. citizens, an identity theft conviction carries dire immigration consequences. These offenses are almost universally considered crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), and depending on the sentence or loss amount, may also qualify as aggravated felonies under immigration law. A conviction can lead to detention, deportation, denial of lawful permanent residence (green card), denial of naturalization (citizenship), and permanent bars to re-entering the United States. Even minor identity theft charges must be handled with extreme care by non-citizens due to these severe risks.
Minnesota’s identity theft statute (§ 609.527) is intricate, with broad definitions for “identity,” specific requirements for “unlawful activity,” and distinct elements for related crimes like using false pretenses or possessing skimming devices. A criminal defense attorney provides essential expertise in navigating this complexity. They meticulously analyze whether the specific information allegedly used meets the legal definition of “identity,” whether the alleged underlying crime qualifies as “unlawful activity,” and whether the prosecution’s evidence satisfies every element of the specific subdivision charged (Subd. 2, 5a, or 5b). This detailed legal analysis is crucial for identifying weaknesses in the state’s case that might not be apparent without specialized knowledge.
A core element of the main identity theft crime (Subd. 2) and the device possession crime (Subd. 5b) is the defendant’s specific intent – the intent to commit, aid, or abet an unlawful activity. Proving this subjective mental state beyond a reasonable doubt can be challenging for the prosecution. A defense attorney focuses heavily on contesting the state’s evidence of intent. They explore alternative explanations for possessing or using the identity information or device, arguing it was accidental, authorized, mistaken, or done without any connection to a planned felony or qualifying non-felony offense. Successfully demonstrating a lack of the required criminal intent can defeat the identity theft charge itself.
Identity theft cases often involve complex trails of financial transactions, electronic communications, and digital data. A defense attorney, often working with forensic experts, undertakes a thorough investigation of this evidence. They scrutinize bank records, credit card statements, online account logs, IP addresses, emails, and device data presented by the prosecution, looking for inconsistencies, alternative explanations, or evidence pointing away from their client. They also seek exculpatory digital evidence the prosecution may have overlooked. Understanding how to interpret and challenge digital and financial evidence is critical in modern identity theft defense.
Given the potentially severe felony penalties and the mandatory minimum restitution ($1,000 per direct victim) associated with § 609.527, skilled negotiation is paramount. A defense attorney assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the case and engages with the prosecutor to seek the best possible outcome. This might involve negotiating for dismissal, reduced charges (e.g., pleading to a lower-level theft or a non-theft offense), or arguing for a sentence below the guidelines. Critically, the attorney addresses the significant financial impact of mandatory restitution, potentially negotiating payment plans or challenging the number of alleged direct victims to minimize the long-term financial burden on the client.
