DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Eleventh Circuit ruling on how to count ID theft "victims" for purposes of sentencing guidelines

Posted on February 1, 2013 by Dissent

In April 2011, I blogged about two medical office assistants who had been charged criminally under HIPAA for stealing patient information and providing it to others for an ID theft/fraud ring.

Today, I learned from a post by Al Saikali on the Data Security Law Journal that Erica Hall had appealed her sentence  to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of how to apply sentencing guidelines to counting “victims.”   From the ruling:

Appellant Erica Hall (“Hall”) pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 1); conspiracy to commit identity theft and access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 2); and wrongfully obtaining and transferring individually identifiable health information for personal gain, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6(a)(2) (Count 3). When imposing Hall’s sentence, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because it found that the offense involved more than 50 but fewer than 250 victims. In objecting to the enhancement, Hall argued that the mere transfer or sale of identifying information unlawfully or without authority does not equate to the actual use of identifying information for a fraudulent purpose. Therefore, because the conspirators actually used only identifying information for 12 out of 141 individuals to obtain fraudulent credit cards, Hall argued that the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) was more appropriate because it applies to more than 10 but fewer than 50 victims. The district court rejected Hall’s argument, but we do not.


Would you consider yourself an “identity theft victim” if your data were transmitted to conspirators in a fraud ring – even if they didn’t use your information at all? In this case, it may not matter how you’d feel as much as how the federal sentencing guidelines are to be interpreted. And the manual on sentencing guidelines defines “victim” as:

(i) any victim as defined in Application Note 1; or (ii) any individual whose means of identification was used unlawfully or without authority.” Id., comment. (n.4(E)) (emphasis added).

Because Application Note 1’s definition of “victim” doesn’t apply to this case at all,  it boiled down to whether the patients’ information was used. And according to the court, transferring information is not the same as using it.

As I read the ruling, I wondered the same thing that Al Saikali wondered:

… it will be interesting to see what impact, if any, the Eleventh Circuit’s definition of identity theft victim has on the issue of what constitutes cognizable harm for civil litigation purposes?  (The Eleventh Circuit recently allowed this data breach class action to proceed).

Related posts:

  • Medical ID theft rates, costs continue to climb as consumers fail to protect their info or to report crime – Report
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Bill advances to help prevent state data breaches
Identity theft charges prompts Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare to tighten policies →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.