Most of these allegations are classified by SSA/OIG as involving either (1) SSN misuse or (2) program fraud that may contain elements of SSN misuse. No Comprehensive Data on Enforcement Results under State Identity Theft Statutes, but Case Examples Illustrate Use of Such Laws

As with the federal Identity Theft Act, we found no centralized or comprehensive data on enforcement results under state identity theft statutes. Generally, the prevalence of identity theft and the frequently multi- or cross-jurisdictional nature of such crime underscore the importance of having means for promoting cooperation or coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Generally, task forces can have participating agencies from all levels of law enforcement—federal, state, and local—and may also have private sector representation. One of the 29 referrals involved 10 individuals with the same address. Of the two categories of allegations, however, SSA/OIG generally concentrates its investigative resources on allegations of program fraud with SSN misuse potential because the protection of Social Security trust funds is a priority. Actions taken by the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General (SSA/OIG) to resolve Social Security number (SSN) misuse and other identity theft-related allegations received during fiscal year 1999. Means Used to Promote Cooperation or Coordination among Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies in Addressing Identity Theft

Our literature search and discussions with federal and state law enforcement officials indicated that three principal means are used to promote cooperation or coordination among all levels of law enforcement in addressing identity theft crimes—law enforcement task forces with multi-agency participation, the Attorney General’s Identity Theft Subcommittee, and FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network and Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse database. Appendix II: Examples of Cases Prosecuted under the Federal Identity Theft Act

This appendix summarizes selected federal cases prosecuted under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. § 1344 (bank fraud). Then, the perpetrators used the personal information to fraudulently obtain credit cards.
What GAO Found

Identity theft or identity fraud generally involves "stealing" another person's personal identifying information--such as Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, and mother's maiden name--and then using the information to fraudulently establish credit, run up debt, or take away existing financial accounts. The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 made identity theft a separate crime against the person whose identity was stolen, broadened the scope of the offense to include the misuse of information as well as documents and provided punishment--generally a fine or imprisonment or both. GAO found no comprehensive or centralized data on enforcement results under the federal Identity Theft Act. However, according to a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, federal prosecutors are using the 1998 federal law. As with the federal act, GAO found no centralized or comprehensive data on enforcement results under state identity theft statutes. However, officials in the 10 states selected for study provided examples of actual investigations or prosecutions under these statutes. Generally, the prevalence of identity theft and the frequently multi- or cross-jurisdictional nature of such a crime underscore the importance of promoting cooperation or coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. One of the most commonly used means of coordination, task forces, can have participating agencies from all levels of law enforcement and, in some instances, can have participants from banks and other private sector entities. Although the Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General fraud hotline annually receives thousands of allegations involving either (1) SSN misuse or (2) program fraud with SSN misuse potential, the agency concentrates its investigative resources on the latter category of allegations because the protection of the Social Security trust funds is a priority.