Page 3 of 43
2009, Identity Theft Resource Center
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
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.
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%.