Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Identity Theft Aftermath Study 2008

Identity Theft Aftermath Study 2008

Ratings: (0)|Views: 47 |Likes:
Published by Sandra O'Conor
Statistics from the ITRC on victims of identity theft for the year 2008. Up again!
Statistics from the ITRC on victims of identity theft for the year 2008. Up again!

More info:

Published by: Sandra O'Conor on Dec 07, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Identity Theft:The Aftermath 2008
Conducted by the Identity Theft Resource Center® (ITRC)
With comparisons to
The Aftermath Surveys: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 
Original data analyzed by: Linda Foley, Karen Barney, Sheila Gordon, and Jay FoleyFinal Summary: Co-written by the ITRC staff Commentaries: James Lee and Julie Fergerson
Policy makers and law enforcement are hereby permitted to use this survey for legislative and educational purposes.
This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-VF-GX-K038 awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the ITRC and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies ofthe U.S. Department of Justice
 Identity Theft:
The Aftermath 2008
With comparisons to
The Aftermath Surveys: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 
 Since 2003, the Identity Theft Resource Center® (ITRC) has conducted annual victimization surveys tostudy the impact of identity theft crimes on its victims.
The goal of these surveys and reports, now withsix years of information, is to view identity theft from the victim’s perspective.ITRC firmly believes that only a collaborative effort that includes identity theft victims, subject matterexperts, business, law enforcement and government will provide us with the tools needed to battle identitythieves. Unless we adopt a policy of “it is us” against the criminals, the criminals will continue to win.While providing a forum for victims to express their experience, ITRC’s hope is that
 Identity Theft: The Aftermath
, will help in this collaborative effort. Victim of identity theft provide a unique insight into thecrime that may not apparent to other parties. The survey respondents help to explain the gaps theyencountered in victim’s rights, interactions with various entities, and identity and clarify the needs of victims of identity theft crimes. These are things we can address as a nation and as a collaborationfighting against identity theft. Through this report, readers will become aware of how lives can beinterrupted, torn apart, and the emotional and financial impact of being a victim of identity theft, bothshort term and long term.This study reflects only the experiences of confirmed identity theft victims who worked with the ITRC in2008. It is not a national census study of all victims of identity theft. Responses were given at the timevictims responded to the survey and may not fully represent the entire experience of the individual. Thus,certain measures of victimization represent conservative estimates since the assessment was limited to theending date of the study.The following are highlights of the
 Identity Theft: The Aftermath 2008
study. Tables and additional datacan be found in the full report.
Prevalence of types of identity theft crimes:
In 2008, the “unlawful use of personal identifyinginformation” for only financial identity theft crimes was reported by 73% of the respondents,slightly less than in 2007. Criminal cases represented 5% and governmental issues, which mayinvolve employment, benefit fraud, tax fraud or someone using a fraudulent driver’s license as anidentifier, accounted for 2%. The rest were combination cases: financial and criminal (6%),financial and governmental (9%), and a combination of all three types (5%). (Table 1)
Uses of victim information:
For the past six years, opening new lines of credit has remained themost frequently occurring financial crime. In 2008, 67% of the victims were in this category.Charges on stolen credit cards and debit cards without a PIN also ranked high on the list (39%).This is more than double any preceding year. As predicted by ITRC, check fraud grew to 17% in
Page 2 of 43
 Identity Theft:
The Aftermath
2009, Identity Theft Resource Center
, www.idtheftcenter.org
Page 3 of 43
 Identity Theft:
The Aftermath
2009, Identity Theft Resource Center
, www.idtheftcenter.org
2008, increasing from the 12% in 2007. Criminals also took out various types of loans usingpersonal identifying information. Mortgages and 2
mortgages (33%), car loans (22%), personalloans (32%) and business loans (8%) were among those types of loans reported. (Table 2 and 2A)
Non-financial forms of identity theft:
In 2008, 56% of respondents reported thieves hadcommitted financial crimes that resulted in warrants being issued in the victim’s name. Fraudulentdriver’s licenses, employment in the victim’s name and receiving tax refunds or governmentassistance also were prominent. It should be noted that identity thieves continued to obtaingovernment assistance and benefits using the victim’s information. (Table 4)
Medical identity theft:
In 2008, ITRC introduced a set of questions to monitor this issue. Morethan 2/3 of those responding to these questions reported that medical providers billed for servicesreceived by the imposter. Another 56% were contacted by a collection agency or billingdepartment for those services. One-third of the respondents said there is now another person’sinformation on their medical records and 11% were denied health or life insurance due tounexplained reasons. (Table 4A)
Moment of discovery:
ITRC noted a significant change in the manner by which the victimdiscovered the crime in 2008. This year only 34% of respondents found out due to an adversesituation, down from 82% in 2007. Examples of this include: actions taken by the credit andfinancial industries, job denial, or a negative notification from law enforcement. Increases in bothbusiness and victim proactive actions were seen, with a major jump from 8% in 2007 to 45% in2008, for example monitoring billing statements, noticing funds missing from accounts, and creditreport monitoring. (Table 8)
Costs to victim:
Respondents in 2008 spent an average of $739 dollars in out-of-pocket expensesfor damage done to an
account indicating an increase from 2007 ($550). These expensesinclude: postage, photocopying, purchasing police reports, travel, buying court records, andchildcare. In reference to
, respondents spent less in 2008 with an average of $951compared to $1865 in 2007. At least one person reported this included fees charged by anattorney.
Cost to business:
In 2008, respondents reported an average of $90,107 in fraudulent loss. In2007, the average was $48,941. In 2006, the average fraud loss was $87,303. These studies onlyinclude respondents who contacted the ITRC and are not necessarily indicative of a nationalbusiness loss average.
Victim hours repairing damage:
The Aftermath 2008,
victims reported spending an averageof 58 hours repairing the damage done by identity theft to an
used or taken overby the thief. In cases where a
 new account
was created, respondents reported an average of 165hours to clean up the fraud. Note: This information is current only at the time of survey and maynot indicate final totals.
Extended involvement:
For the past five years, there has been a steady increase in the number of respondents able to clear issues of all misinformation within the first six months. In 2008, 53%reported their time involvement was 1-6 months (Table 10). Nearly 30% reported that it took 7-23months to resolve their case. The number of respondents needing more than 2 years to clear theirname has remained relatively steady for the past two years at nearly 20%.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->