Credit Card Crime
Criminal Law – Week 7 Assignment
Credit Card Crime
In a two to three page paper, please discuss the following: Assume a person accidentally picks up a credit card that is not theirs and uses the card in several instances.
Can the person be charged with multiple violations of a state statute that makes it a crime to “knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information of another?” Why or why not? See State vs. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006).
Make sure you format your paper and cite all sources used in this paper appropriately according to APA style guidelines
Credit Card Crime
Credit card fraud is one form of identity theft. It involves the unauthorized taking of credit card information belonging to someone else to remove funds from it or make purchases. Federal law limits cardholders’ liability to $50 when involved in a case of credit card theft. The majority of the banks waive that amount if the owner signs an affidavit that explains the robbery. Credit card crime is under the two categories of fraud: account takeover and application fraud. The other method used to take over another person’s account is skimming.
Application fraud happens when a credit card account is opened using details belonging to another person. The perpetrator obtains information on a person and creates convincing counterfeit documents to fill out the credit card information. The victim learns about the fraud when it is too late, making it risky. Account takeover is hijacking an already existing credit card account belonging to another person. The perpetrator acquires detailed personal information belonging to the account owner to enable him to change the billing address. The perpetrator can change the billing address by reporting the lost card to obtain a new one with further details.
An example of a credit card theft case is the one that involved the state versus Leyda. The case happened in October 2002, when Leyda, who was the defendant, took a credit card from Cynthis Austin (Wash, 2006). He then gave it to his girlfriend, Nikkoleen Cooley, who used it to purchase items four times at the Bon Marche store in the SeaTac Mall. The cashier suspected the card to be stolen and contacted the Loss Prevention Department. Cooley was asked to show her identification and left the store with the card. The victim was reached, and Leyda was charged with four counts of identity theft, four of the four times he used the credit card. He appealed to the state supreme court for violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy refers to the procedural defense protecting the accused person from being tried on similar charges when acquitted. The double jeopardy clause is contained in the fifth amendment of the US constitution (Thomas III, 2020). The majority of the state constitutions protect people from being retried over the same crime. It is an important constitutional right for defendants, and it is applied regardless of how severe the crime is. According to the case of State versus Leyda, the state was wrong to charge him with multiple violations of the state statute of credit card theft. Ye was charged four times for using the credit card, but the law only allows one general charge over the four times he used the card. It is essential to practice double jeopardy because it imposes limits on the prosecutor’s power and protects a person from the emotional and financial toll of repeated prosecutions.
In conclusion, the technological advances have created gaps where credit card fraud happens easily. However, the introduction of online purchases does not require a physical credit card. Most credit card fraud cases that call for criminal prosecution are dealt with at the local and state levels. The severity of punishment depends on various factors that include the amount of money stolen, the criminal history of the fraudster, and the intentions of the event. Double jeopardy also has its limits. The defendant’s criminal record has to be clean. The rule of double jeopardy still applies even when a person is charged with murder. The prosecutor has to follow the law. If not, an appeal is made that makes the ruling fair enough.
References
Wash. (2006). State vs. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610
Thomas III, G. C. (2020). The Double Jeopardy Clause and the Failure of the Common Law. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 53, 7.
