The Sixth Circuit has rejected a Justice Department interpretation of the federal identity theft law that would have criminalized almost any use of another person’s name during the commission of a felony. In United States v. David Eugene Miller, the government argued that the defendant’s fraudulent statement on a bank loan application that his partners had attended a meeting and authorized him to pledge property as collateral for a loan was covered by the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act because the statement included those partners’ names. Somewhat surprisingly, the court did not reject the government’s argument out of hand, as it found that the language of the Act and its legislative history were ambiguous. Instead, it held that the rule of lenity required that it resolve the ambiguity in the defendant’s favor, and ruled, narrowly, that the defendant’s recitation of his partners’ names in the loan application was not covered by the Act.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact email@example.comRegister
Perhaps “identity theft” really means identity theft
To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader.
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Related topic hubs
Director and Senior Counsel
“The new ACC Newsstand is one of the best e-resources that I have encountered in 21 years of practicing Employment Law. The information is timely, helpful and easy to navigate. Thank you for offering it and please continue it indefinitely!!”