AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

BalancingProportionalityand
Deterrence:TheFirstCircuitsDefinition
ofVictimsofIdentityTheftin
UnitedStatesv.Stepanian

SHAWNP.AYOTTE*

ABSTRACT

MikaelStepanianwasconvictedofstealingtheidentifyinginformation
fromover1,000peopleinanelaborateschemeoverthecourseofmonths.
For weeks at a time, customers at Stop & Shop grocery stores in Rhode
Island swiped their debit and credit cards through checkout terminals,
unawarethatStepanianandhisaccompliceshadreplacedthoseterminals
withnearlyidenticalcopiesthatweremodifiedtorecordthenumberand
PINcodeofeverycardswipedthroughtheterminal.Followinghisguilty
plea, Stepanian was sentenced to six years in prison, a sentence that was
heavily influenced by the district courts counting each of the individual
cardholdersasvictimsundertheU.S.SentencingGuidelines.Stepanian
appealed, arguing that the financial institutions that ultimately bore the
entirefinanciallossweretheonlyvictimsforsentencingpurposes.
In deciding on Stepanians appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals
choseabroaddefinitionofvictimsforsentencingpurposes,holdingthat
any deprivation of funds, no matter how brief, constituted a loss,
increasing dramatically the number of Stepanians victims. The U.S.
Sentencing Commission later adopted a definition that reaches a
substantially similar result. However, where the First Circuits decision
was influenced by questions of proportionality in sentencing, the
Sentencing Commission was influenced by a Congressional directive to
increasedeterrencethroughharshersentencing.
Though the broader definition of victims better meets the
proportionality and deterrence principles of criminal sentencing as the

*
Candidate for Juris Doctor, New England School of Law (2011). B.S. Economics,
UniversityofPennsylvania(2004).Iwouldliketothankmyfamilyandfriendsforalloftheir
encouragementinthewritingofthisComment.

245
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

246 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

federalandstategovernmentscontinuetocombatidentitytheft,itappears
thatthedeterrencerationalemayultimatelydrivesentencinginthisareaof
law. As deterrence becomes the primary consideration, future directives
and revisions may further increase sentences, creating a potentially
disproportionate result. In order to remain aligned with the fundamental
principles of criminal sentencing, legislators and judges must ensure that
proportionalityanddeterrenceremaincarefullybalancedgoingforward.

INTRODUCTION

A
woman traveling abroad finds herself out of the country without
access to the funds needed to cover her travel expenses.1 A man
and his family spend weeks struggling to afford food and gas
whentheyarecutofffromthemoneytheyneed.2Thatsamemanfacesthe
embarrassmentofhavinghiscarddeniedwhentryingtopayforhissons
birthday party.3 The woman and man above shareat least three things in
common.First,bothhadtheircreditordebitcardinformationstoleninan
elaborate identity theft scheme and used in unauthorized transactions.4
Second, though both were forced to struggle to meet their financial
obligations,bothwerelaterreimbursedbytheirbanksforthemoneytaken
by the thieves.5 Finally, until recently, it was unclear whether they
qualified as victims of identity theft and fraud for the purposes of
sentencingthepeoplewhostoletheirpersonalinformation.6
The two people described above both had their credit or debit card
information stolen by Mikael Stepanian and his accomplices through a
practice called skimming,7 in which a persons credit card, debit card,
and personal identification number (PIN) are recorded by an altered
terminal in an ATM or store checkout line.8 When Stepanian was caught,

1SeeUnitedStatesv.Stepanian,570F.3d51,56(1stCir.2009).Theabovedescriptionsofthe

victims difficulties were detailed in declaration of victim losses statements filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Id. Though they are somewhat
exceptional,theyhighlightoneendofthespectrumofconsequencesofhavingonesidentity
stolen.Seeid.
2Seeid.

3Seeid.

4Seeid.at53.

5Seeid.at54.

6CompareUnitedStatesv.Lee,427F.3d881,895(11thCir.2005)(holdingthatareimbursed

lender was a victim as defined by the 2008 Sentencing Guidelines), with United States v.
Yagar, 404 F.3d 967, 971 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that account holders who are fully
reimbursedfortemporaryfinanciallossesarenotvictimsforsentencingpurposes).
7Stepanian,570F.3dat53.

8See THE PRESIDENTS IDENTITY THEFT TASK FORCE, COMBATING IDENTITY THEFT: A
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 247

he pled guilty to fraud, conspiracy, and aggravated identity theft.9 At

sentencing, Stepanian received a sixlevel enhancement under the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) because the Office of Probation
foundthathiscrimeimpactedmorethan250victims.10Stepanianobjected
to the presentencing report (PSR),11 claiming that reimbursed
cardholderscouldnotbecountedasvictimsbecausetheydidnotbearthe
final financial loss resulting from his crime.12 The United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island found Stepanians argument
unpersuasive and adopted the PSRs recommendation, sentencing
Stepanian to seventytwo months in prison.13 Stepanian appealed, but the
First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts sentence,
holdingthatareimbursedcardholderwasstillavictimforthepurposes
of sentencing calculations under the Guidelines.14 The U.S. Sentencing
Commissionfollowedsuit,amendingtheGuidelinestospecificallyinclude
reimbursedcardholdersasvictimsofidentitytheft.
ThisCommentwilldiscusstheFirstCircuitsholding,itsimpactonthe
proportionality and deterrence goals of the Guidelines, and the potential
risk of disproportionate sentencing. Part I of this Comment reviews the
risks posed by identity theft crimes, the legislative attempts to curtail the
growth of identity crimes, and the role the Guidelines play in controlling
thesetypesofcrimes.PartIIdiscussesthefactsandholdinginUnitedStates
v.Stepanian.PartIIIdiscussestheprinciplesofdeterrence,proportionality,
andriskcontrolimplicatedinStepanianandthesubsequentamendmentsto
theGuidelines.

STRATEGIC PLAN 18 (2007) [hereinafter TASK FORCE PLAN], available at http://www.idtheft

.gov/reports/StrategicPlan.pdf.Skimmingistheuseofadevicetostealaconsumerscredit
ordebitcardnumber.Id.Examplesofskimming rangefromawaiterusingacardreaderin
hispockettoschemesaselaborateastheoneexecutedbyStepanian.Id.
9Stepanian,570F.3dat54.

10Id.Stepanianreceivedseveralotherupwardanddownwardadjustmentstohissentence.

Id.BecausetheseotherfactorsarenotrelevanttothesubjectofthisComment,theywillbenot
bediscussed.
11ApresentencingreportiscompiledbytheOfficeofProbationfollowinganinvestigation

intothedefendantsbackgroundandtheoffensecharged.SeeFED. R. CRIM. P.32.Thisreport

is then used by the court to determine an appropriate sentence based on the results of the
investigation.Seeid.
12Stepanian,570F.3dat54.

13Id.

14Id.at58.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

248 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

I. IdentityTheftandEffortstoThwartIt

A. TheGrowingThreatofIdentityTheft

The federal crime of identity theft came into existence on October 30,
1998, with the passage of the Identity Theft and Assumption and
DeterrenceAct.15Inadditiontocreatingthecrimeofidentitytheft,theAct
ordered the United States Sentencing Commission (the Commission) to
ensure that the sentencing guidelines for identity theft were properly
alignedwiththegoalsofcriminalsentencing.16TheActalsomandatedthat
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) collect statistics about complaints
offraudandidentitytheftintheUnitedStates.17From20002008,theFTC
reportedanapproximatelytenfoldincreaseinthenumberofidentitytheft
complaints (31,140 complaints in 2000 vs. 313,982 in 2008).18 Of those
complaints, credit card fraud, like the type in Stepanian, accounts for the
largestshare.19
As time has passed and technology has become more available, the
sophistication of identity theft schemes has increased.20 While common
theftanddumpsterdiving21remaintheeasiestandmostcommonways
for thieves to steal identifying information, technological advances have
also made computer hacking, spyware, and skimming useful ways to
obtainpersonalinformation.22
This increase and growing sophistication in identity theft is taking a
tollnotonlyontheindividualvictimsbutonthecommunityatlargeand
the U.S. economy.23 It is estimated that annual monetary losses from

15Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, Pub. L. No. 105318, 3, 112 Stat. 3007,

300708(1998).
16Id.4(b)(7).TheCommissionmustconsideranumberoffactors,includingtheextentto

which Federal sentencing guidelines for the offense adequately achieve the purposes of
sentencing.Id.
17Id.5(a).
18See FED. TRADE COMMN, CONSUMER SENTINEL NETWORK DATA BOOK FOR JANUARY

DECEMBER 2008, at 5 (2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sentinel/reports/sentinelannual

reports/sentinelcy2008.pdf.
19Id.at3.Creditcardfraudaccountedfor20%ofallclaimsofidentitytheftin2008.Id.

20See TASK FORCE PLAN, supra note 8, at 1318 (describing the various methods by which

identitythievesobtainpersonalinformation).
21Dumpster diving is the searching of a persons trash for personally identifying
information.Id.at1415.
22Id.at1418.

23See Gary M. Victor, Identity Theft, Its Environment and Proposals for Change, 18 LOY.

CONSUMERL.REV.273,27880(2006).
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 249

identitytheftareinthebillionsofdollars.24Interestingly,themajorityof
this loss is borne not by individual consumers but by the businesses that
lose revenue because of fraudulent charges.25 Evidence suggests that
consumersrefrainfromelectronictransactionsduetofearofidentitytheft26
anditsterriblepersonalandfinancialtoll.27

B. PreStepanianLegislativeandAdministrativeEffortstoCombat
IdentityTheft

Congress responded to the growing dangers of identity theft in 2004

with the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act,28 which created and
strictlypenalizedthecrimeofaggravatedidentitythefttheunlawfuluse
of anothers identifying information in the commission of a felony.29 A
conviction for aggravated identity theft carries a mandatory twoyear
sentence from which an offender cannot be placed on probation; the
sentencecannotbeservedconcurrently30withanyothersentenceimposed,
except in very limited circumstances; and a court cannot adjust the
sentence downward for an underlying conviction to compensate for the
twoyearmandatorysentence.31Thestatedpurposeofthistreatmentisthe
preventionanddeterrenceofidentitytheft.32
TheGuidelinessimilarlyattempttodeterfinancialcrimeslikeidentity
theftthroughtheimpositionofpenaltiesthatvarydependingonanumber

24TASKFORCEPLAN,supranote8,at11.

25Id.Businessessuffersignificantlossesfromidentitytheft,moresothanconsumerswho

aregenerallynotheldresponsibleforfraudulentcharges.Id.
26Id. at 1112 (citing two studies indicating that in 20052006, 30% to 48% of consumers

minimizedoravoidedshoppingonlineforfearofidentitytheft);seeVictor,supranote23,at
279 (citing a 2000 FTC study suggesting that fears of identity theft resulted in the estimated
lossof$18billioninonlinesales).
27SeeTASK FORCE PLAN, supra note 8, at 1011 (detailing anecdotal descriptions of the
difficultiesvictimsface).
28See Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 108275, 118 Stat. 831 (2004)

(codifiedat18U.S.C.1028A(2006)).
29Id. A charge of aggravated identity theft requires the commission of an underlying

felony. 18 U.S.C. 1028A(c) (defining the underlying felonies for which aggravated identity
theft can be charged). Therefore, a defendant is charged and, if found guilty, sentenced for
twoseparatecrimes:aggravatedidentitytheftanditsunderlyingfelony.1028A(a).
30Concurrent sentences are defined as [t]wo or more sentences of jail time to be served

simultaneously. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1485 (9th ed. 2009). For example, if aconvicted
criminalreceivesconcurrentsentencesof5yearsand15years,thetotalamountofjailtimeis
15 years. Id. The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act makes it impossible for courts to
allow defendants to serve a sentence for aggravated identity theft concurrently with the
underlyingfelony.18U.S.C.1028A(b)(2).
3118U.S.C.1028A(b)(3).

32SeeH.R.REP.NO.108528,at35(2004).
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

250 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

of factors, including the number of victims impacted by a defendants

crime.33 Financial or economic crimes like identity theft generally fall
within section 2B1.1 of the Guidelines, which allows for sentence
enhancementsbasedonseveralconsiderations,suchas:(1)theamountof
moneyinvolved;(2)thenumberofvictimsimpacted;(3)whetherthecrime
involved fraud or misrepresentation; and (4) the theft, use, or
misappropriationofidentifyinginformationofanother,ordevicesusedto
access or receive such information.34 The numberofvictims enhancement
setbytheGuidelinesbecamethecenterofMikaelStepaniansappealfrom
an enhanced sentence for access device fraud and aggravated identity
theft.35

II. UnitedStatesv.Stepanian

A. FactsandProceduralHistory

Beginning in January 2007, Mikael Stepanian and three accomplices

developed and executed a scheme to steal the credit and debit card
numbers of customers in 24hour Stop & Shop grocery stores located in
Rhode Island.36 The execution of their plan generally followed a similar
template: three of the four men would enter a store late in the evening
while the fourth waited in a vehicle just outside the supermarket doors.37
At such a late hour, the stores were staffed by only a small number of
employees.38 One or two of the three men in the store would distract the
employees on duty, while the other(s) quickly removed a payment
terminal from one of the cash registers and replaced it with an altered
versionthatwasequippedtoreadandrecordallofthecardnumbersand
PIN codes entered into the terminal.39 In total, the process took
approximately twelve seconds.40 The three would then leave the store,
takingtheoriginalterminal.41Severalweekslater,themenwouldreturnto
the store and repeat the process, this time switching the altered terminal

33See
U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL ch. 1, pt. A(1)(3) (2008) (amended 2009)
[hereinafter 2008 SENTENCING GUIDELINES] (detailing the purposes and policies guiding the
developmentoftheGuidelines).
34Id.2B1.1(b).

35UnitedStatesv.Stepanian,570F.3d51,5253(1stCir.2009).

36Id.at53.

37Id.

38Seeid.

39Id.

40Id.

41Stepanian,570F.3dat53.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 251

andreplacingitwiththeoriginal.42Onceinpossessionofthecompromised
terminal,theywereabletoextractconsumersinformationfromthedevice
and use that information to make unauthorized transactions on the
consumersbankorcreditcardaccounts.43Intotal,themenstoleover1,000
customers card information and made roughly $132,300 in unauthorized
transactionsbeforebeingcaught.44
Their scheme began to unravel on two fronts. First, when one of the
compromised terminals malfunctioned and was sent out for repair, the
tampering was discovered,45 causing Stop & Shop to bolt down the
terminals in the stores.46 Second, at approximately the same time, risk
prevention software run by Citizens Bank discovered a pattern of credit
anddebitcardtransactionsinCalifornia,whichwereflaggedaspotentially
fraudulent.47 The bank quickly identified the cards and discovered that
they had all recently been used in Stop & Shop grocery stores in Rhode
Island and notified the company.48 With the information, Stop & Shop
identified the men on surveillance tapes and was on alert the next time
theyenteredoneofthestores.49
On February 26, 2007, Stepanian and his accomplices returned to one
ofthestores,wheretheywereidentifiedbystorepersonnelandarrestedby
thepolice.50Asearchofanearbyhotelroomuncoveredmaterialsusedto
alter the payment terminals, as well as a laptop containing the personal
dataofcustomerswhohadshoppedattheStop&ShopstoresinCranston
andCoventry,RhodeIsland.51

42Id.

43Id.

44Id.; Associated Press, US Charges 4 with Scheme to Steal Customer Card Data, BOSTON

GLOBE, Mar. 2, 2007, http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/03/02/us_charges_4_

with_scheme_to_steal_customer_card_data/.
45SeeAssociatedPress,supranote44.
46SeeRossKerber,4ChargedwithTryingtoStealCustomerDataatR.I.Store,BOSTON GLOBE,

Feb.28,2007,at1D,availableat2007WLNR3935459.
47See Risk Management System Busts Data Skimming Ring, COMMWEB NEWS, July 30, 2007,

available at 2007 WLNR 14622255. Stepanian and his accomplices were involved in a cross
country identity theft scheme through which identities stolen in Rhode Island were used to
perform unauthorized transactions in California. Id. In fact, Stepanian and his accomplices
were flying from California to Rhode Island every week to plant and recover compromised
terminals.Id.
48Id.

49SeeUnitedStatesv.Stepanian,570F.3d51,53(1stCir.2009).

50Id.

51Id.at5354.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

252 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

OnJuly13,2007,Stepanianpledguiltyto:
1) conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(2) by trafficking in
andusingoneormoreunauthorizedaccessdeviceswithintentto
defraud,inviolationof18U.S.C.371(CountI);and2)knowing
transfer, possession, or use of other persons means of
identification in relation to the felony offenses of access device
fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(2), (a)(3), and conspiracy to commit
access device fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371, 1029(b)(2), constituting
aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1)
(CountII).52

Prior to sentencing, the Office of Probation compiled a presentencing

report(PSR)withaseriesofsentenceadjustmentsmadepursuanttothe
Guidelines.53 The PSR recommended a sixlevel sentence enhancement
because Stepanians crime impacted more than 250 victims.54 In addition,
the report noted that the charge of aggravated identity theft carried a
mandatoryminimumsentenceoftwoyears.55
Stepanian objected to the PSRs numberofvictims enhancement,
arguingthattheindividualcardholderscouldnotbecountedasvictims
under the Guidelines because they were reimbursed by their financial
institutions.56 The district court disagreed, holding that [t]here was
reimbursement,... but... the guidelines [do not] speak in terms of the
length of time that a victim is deprived of their money or access to their
money.... [T]hese people were victims because money was stolen from
their accounts.57 The district court sentenced Stepanian to seventytwo
months imprisonment.58 The sentence consisted of fortyeight months for
CountI,includingthetimeaddedbythenumberofvictimsenhancement,
aswellasthemandatorytwoyearconsecutivetermforCountII.59

52Id.at54.
53Id.
54Id. Given Stepanians criminal history and other factors, a sixlevel upward adjustment

meantmovingfromasentencebetweentwentyfourandthirtymonthstoonebetweenforty
sixandfiftysevenmonths.See2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,app.G.
55Stepanian,570F.3dat54.Theaggravatedidentitytheftstatutestatesthat,inadditionto

beingsentencedfortheunderlyingcrime,apersonwhouses,transfers,orpossessesanothers
identitytocommitafelonyshall...besentencedtoatermofimprisonmentof2years.18
U.S.C.1028A(a)(1)(2006)(emphasisadded).
56Stepanian,570F.3dat54.

57Id.

58Id.

59Id.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 253

B. StepaniansAppeal

Stepanian challenged his sentence, arguing again that the district

courts calculation of the number of victims of his crime was incorrect.60
The First Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis by examining the
Guidelines, under which a victim of theft and other economic crimes is
defined as any person who sustained any part of the actual loss
determinedundersubsection(b)(1).61TheFirstCircuitthennotedthatthe
Guidelinesdefinedactuallossasthereasonablyforeseeablepecuniary
harmthatresultedfromtheoffense.62Pecuniaryharm,theFirstCircuit
noted,isharmthatismonetaryorthatotherwiseisreasonablymeasured
in money.63 Stepanian argued that no individual cardholders suffered
actuallossasdefinedbytheGuidelines,becausenoneofthecardholders
borethefinalfinanciallossresultingfromhiscrime.64Inessence,Stepanian
arguedthat,forsentencingpurposes,theonlyvictimsofhiscrimewerethe
handful of banks that had reimbursed their defrauded customers.65 The
governmentcounteredbyarguingthattheGuidelinesdidnotrequirethat
a victim bear the final loss resulting from a crime, only that the
customerssustainanypartofthelossbeforebeingreimbursed.66
In upholding the Rhode Island District Court, the First Circuit
determinedthatthewordsustaininthedefinitionofvictimmeantto
undergo or suffer.67 This definition of sustain carried no temporal
requirement, meaning that any loss, no matter how brief, was still a loss
under the Guidelines.68 Therefore, the unavailability of funds for any
period of time constituted a loss sustained by the cardholder.69
Interestingly,thecourtspecificallystatedinafootnotethatthelevelofloss

60Id.
61Id.at55(quoting2008 SENTENCING GUIDELINES,supranote33,2B1.1cmt.n.1).Section

2B1.1addressessentencingcalculationsforlarceny,embezzlement,theft,andothereconomic
crimes.2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,2B1.1.
62Stepanian, 570 F.3d at 55 (quoting 2008 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 33, 2B1.1

cmt.n.3(A)(i)).
63Id.(quoting2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,2B1.1cmt.n.3(A)(iii)).

64Id.

65Seeid.

66Id.

67Id.(citingBLACKSLAWDICTIONARY1488(8thed.2004)).

68Stepanian,570F.3dat55.

69Seeid.at5556(Thecardholdersborethefirstpartofthetotallossesbeforethefunds

wererestored.Thedirectwithdrawalofmoneyfromtheirbankaccountsleftthemunableto
accesstheirmoneyforsomeperiodoftime.).
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

254 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

orimpactdidnothavetoreachthelevelsdescribedinthemoresignificant
declarations of victim losses; any circumstance where someone cannot
accessmoneytheyneedissufficient.70
Finally,itwasheldthatStepaniansargumentrancountertothevery
purpose of the numberofvictims enhancement in the Guidelines.71 To
reachthisdetermination,thecourtlookedtoCongresssstatedpurposein
theGuidelinesandconcludedthatsection2B1.1oftheGuidelinesserves
Congresssgoalofachievingproportionalityinsentencingthroughasystem
that imposes appropriately different sentences for criminal conduct of
different severity.72 This analysis supported the governments position
that basing the number of victims on the final bearers of loss worked
against the numberofvictims enhancements purpose to measure the
magnitude of the loss, rather than to apportion damages.73 The court
concludedthatthecardholderswerevictimsforthepurposesofsentencing
andupheldthesixlevelenhancementappliedbythedistrictcourt.74
WiththedecisioninStepanian,theFirstCircuitenteredintoanareaof
lawfraughtwithdisagreementanddifferingopinions,markedbyacircuit
split and multiple interpretations of the Guidelines.75 In its final note on
this matter, the court acknowledged the circuit split, and concluded that
action will likely be required by the Supreme Court or the Sentencing
Commissiontoresolvetheissue.76

C. PostStepanianSentencingGuidelinesRevisions

In late 2009, the Sentencing Commission promulgated eleven

amendmentstotheGuidelines.77AsdirectedbyCongress,78theSentencing
Commission revised section 2B1.1 to increase sentences and resolve the

70Id.at56n.7.
71Id.at5758.

72Id.at57(quoting2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,ch.1,pt.A(1)(3)).
73Id. at 5758. The court agreed with the governments point that Stepanians argument

couldleadtotheperverseandunintendedconclusionthattherewouldbeonlyonevictimif
asingleinsurerstoodbehindthe26banksandabsorbedthelosses.Id.
74Stepanian,570F.3dat58.

75Id.at58n.12.

76Id.

77Thomas W. Hutchison, Highlights of the 2009 Amendments to the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines,in1FEDERALSENTENCINGGUIDELINESMANUALvii,vii(2009).
78See Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110326, 209, 122 Stat.

3560,3564(2008)(directingtheSentencing Commissiontoincreasethepenaltiesforidentity
theft violations and to consider whether the term victim in section 2B1.1 should include
individualswhoseprivacywasviolatedbutsufferednomonetaryharm).
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 255

circuitsplitindefiningvictimsofidentitytheftforsentencingpurposes.79
Toachieveitsmandate,theSentencingCommissionadoptedtheminority
viewthatcardholdersarevictimsofidentitytheft,regardlessofwhether
they are ultimately reimbursed by their financial institutions.80 The
Guidelines new definition includes any person whose means of
identificationwasusedunlawfullyorwithoutauthority,thuseliminating
the loss requirement that divided the circuit courts.81 With this
amendment, all circuits will now use essentially the same definition
adopted by the Stepanian court, which will likely lead to increased
sentencingforidentitytheftinallcircuits.82

III. FundamentalSentencingPrinciplesintheStepanianDecisionand
SubsequentGuidelinesAmendments

Identitytheftcarriesaresonatingimpactontheindividualsitaffects.83
People whose identities have been stolen experience a sense of
hopelessness when someone steals their good name and good credit to
commit fraud and speak of their frustration in fighting against an
unknown opponent.84 This hopelessness and frustration is in addition to
the loss of access to money, temporary or permanent, which results from
thefraudulentactivity.85Identitytheftisarapidlygrowingcrimethattakes
aterribletollonitsvictims,theeconomy,andsocietyingeneral.86

A. StepanianandtheSubsequentAmendmentstotheSentencing
GuidelinesFurthertheGoalsofFederalSentencingbyRecognizing
theMagnitudeandScopeofIdentityCrimes.

The stated policy of the Guidelines is to address three concerns

expressed by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: honesty,

79Hutchison,supranote77,atixx.
80See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL 2B1.1 cmt. n.4(E) (2009) [hereinafter 2009

SENTENCINGGUIDELINES]([I]nacaseinvolvingmeansofidentificationvictimmeans(i)any
victim as [previously defined]; or (ii) any individual whose means of identification was used
unlawfullyorwithoutauthority.)(emphasisadded).
81Seeid.

82CompareUnitedStatesv.Stepanian,570F.3d51,58(1stCir.2009)(definingvictimsas

anyone who loses funds, even temporarily, as a result of the unauthorized use of his or her
identifyinginformation),with2009SENTENCING GUIDELINES,supranote80, 2B1.1 cmt.n.4(E)
(definingvictimsasanyonewhoseidentifyinginformationisusedwithoutauthorization).
83SeeTASKFORCEPLAN,supranote8,at10.

84Id.

85Stepanian,570F.3dat54(Thelossexperiencedbytheindividualvictimsmayhavebeen

forashortperiodoftime,mighthavebeenforaweekortwoweeksorforaday....).
86SeeTASKFORCEPLAN,supranote8,at10.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

256 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

uniformity, and proportionality in criminal sentencing.87 Although the

SupremeCourtrenderedtheGuidelinesadvisoryratherthanmandatory,88
the Court concluded that even in such an advisory role, the Guidelines
couldcontinuetoservetheessentialfunctionsofuniformity,honesty,and
proportionality.89 Additionally, although the Guidelines are no longer a
mandatory source of federal sentencing, courts must still consider them
when sentencing defendants.90 It is logical, therefore, to expect courts to
interprettheGuidelinesinsuchawayastogivemaximumeffecttotheir
goals, while still retaining the ability to adjust individual sentences
dependingonthefactsofeachcase.91

1. InRejectingtheFinalLossDefinitionofVictims,the
StepanianDecisionandtheSentencingCommissionMore
ProportionatelySentencesIdentityThieves.

While some circuits emphasis on who bears the final loss resulting
fromacrime(thefinallossdefinition)mightarguablyhavefulfilledthe
Guidelines honesty and uniformity requirements, whether this
definition achieved proportionality is dubious.92 The finalloss view
ignored potentially thousands of impacted individuals who suffered at
least a temporary loss of funds and the attendant difficulties of such a
loss.93Inafinallossanalysis,identitytheftwasacrimewithfewvictims,as
cardholderswereoverlookedtofocusonbanks,whothemselvesmayhave

872008 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 33, ch. 1, pt. A(1)(3) (stating the congressional

intentinpassingtheSentencingReformAct).
88In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the portions of the Sentencing

Reform Act that made the Guidelines mandatory were unconstitutional as a Sixth
Amendmentviolation.UnitedStatesv.Booker,543U.S.220,245(2005).TheCourtexcisedthe
languagemakingtheGuidelinesmandatory,essentiallyrenderingtheGuidelinesadvisory.Id.
(So modified, the federal sentencing statute, [the Sentencing Reform Act], makes the
Guidelineseffectivelyadvisory.)(citationsomitted).
89See
id. at 264 (The system remaining after excision [for unconstitutionality], while
lacking the mandatory features that Congress enacted, retains other features that help to
furthertheseobjectives.).
90Id.

91Seeid.at26465(statingthatcourtswouldfurtherthegoalsoftheSentencingReformAct

whileretainingtheflexibilitytoindividualizesentenceswhennecessary).
92See2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,ch.1,pt.A(1)(3).

93See, e.g., United States v. Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51, 57 (1st Cir. 2009). Under a finalloss

definition of victim, over 1,000 individually affected cardholders would have been
disregarded for sentencing purposes in Stepanian, leaving only twentysix financial
institutionsasvictims.Id.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 257

been overlooked to focus on indemnifying insurance companies.94 The

resultwasashortersentence,notbecauseadefendantsfraudwassmallin
scope,butbecausehedefraudedindemnifiedcardholders.95
TheStepaniandecisionandsimilardecisionsinothercircuitsaswell
as the amendments to the Guidelines correct this disproportionate
sentencing.Thereviseddefinitionofvictimsbetterservestheinterestof
proportionality by recognizing that identity theft impacts individuals in
ways beyond the permanent loss of money.96 A loss of funds, for even a
brief period of time, can work a devastating financial hardship on
individuals,eveniftheyaresoonfullyreimbursed.97Infact,withsomany
Americanslivingpaychecktopaycheck,itiseasytoimaginethekindof
harm caused by going even a single week without access to funds.98
Without personal savings to act as a cushion, a temporary loss from
identity theft jeopardizes an average Americans ability to meet his
financial obligations.99 Additionally, many affected individuals must
embark upon a difficult, timeconsuming, and costly effort to repair the
nonfinancial damage caused by identity theft, including correcting credit
scores and disputing fraudulent transactions.100 In light of this potential
impact, theFirst Circuitsholding thata temporaryloss offunds is a loss
sustainedwithinthemeaningoftheGuidelinesreflectsarecognitionof
thefinancialharmcausedbyevenatemporarydeprivation.101
The revised Guidelines take a different approach and eliminate the
financial considerations entirely.102 Regardless of this difference, both
approaches recognize that identity theft is not a crime against only banks
and insurance companiesit is a crime against individual cardholders as
well.103TheonlydifferenceisthattheStepaniandefinitionrequiresatleasta

94Seeid.

95SeeUnitedStatesv.Connor,537F.3d480,49394(5thCir.2005)(Garza,J.,concurringin

partanddissentinginpart)(That[thedefendant]wasluckyenoughtodefraudvictimswho
had fraud insurance should not result in his receiving a reduced sentence under the
Guidelines,andweshouldnotinterpret[them]toleadtosucharesult.).
96TASKFORCEPLAN,supranote8,at1011(detailingthedifficultiesvictimsface).

97See,e.g.,supratextaccompanyingnotes13.

98MarkCoindreau,MoreAmericansLivingPaychecktoPaycheck,REUTERS, Sept.15,2008,htt

p://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS194666+15Sep2008+PRN20080915. According
toa2008survey,upto71%ofAmericansreportedlivingpaychecktopaycheck,definedas
being unable to meet their financial obligations if their paychecks were delayed for just one
week.Id.
99Seeid.

100TASKFORCEPLAN,supranote8,at11.

101SeeUnitedStatesv.Stepanian,570F.3d51,5657(1stCir.2009).

102See2009SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote80,2B1.1cmt.n.4(E).

103Seesupranotes9799andaccompanyingtext.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

258 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

temporary loss of funds, while the revised Guidelines simply require the
useofanothersidentifyinginformation.104Thisdistinctionmayactually
separate the punishment for identity theft from its economic damage.
Where the 2008 Guidelines and Stepanian require an actual loss
howevertemporarythe2009Guidelinesappeartorequireonlytheuse
of identifying information, regardless of whether that use results in an
actualloss.105Giventhisdistinction,itispossiblethatthe2009Guidelines
will recognize an even greater number of victims than the First Circuits
definitioninStepanian.106

2. TheIncreasedSentencesResultingfromtheStepanian
Decisionandthe2009GuidelinesAmendmentShould
FurthertheCongressionalGoalofDeterrenceThrough
EnhancedSentences.

Both the federal and state governments have spent the better part of
the last decade attempting to combat identity thieves.107 These attempts
havefocusedontwokeyareas:(1)theprotectionofconsumers,bothbefore
and after their identities are stolen; and (2) the deterrence of identity
thieves.108 Deterrence is defined as [t]he act or process of discouraging
certainbehavior,particularlybyfear;[especially],asagoalofcriminallaw,
thepreventionofcriminalbehaviorbyfearofpunishment.109Thegoalof
deterrence is simple: to make the consequences of criminal activity so
unpalatable that potential criminals choose not to engage in such
behavior.110 Federal legislation passed over the last decade demonstrates
theimportanceplacedondeterringidentitytheft.111
Congressional attempts to deter identity theft have included the

104Compare Stepanian, 570 F.3d at 58, with 2009 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 80,

2B1.1cmt.n.4(E).
105CompareStepanian, 570 F.3d at 58, and 2008 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 33,
2B1.1cmt.n.1,with2009SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote80,2B1.1cmt.n.4(E).
106Seesupranotes10205andaccompanyingtext.

107Nicki K. Elgie, Note, The Identity Theft CatandMouse Game: An Examination of the State

and Federal Governments Latest Maneuvers, 4 I/S: J.L. & POLY FOR INFO. SOCY 621, 623 (2008)
(describing the last decade as a catandmouse game wherein identity thieves
sophisticationhasincreasedinordertocircumventeverincreasinggovernmentalattemptsto
protectconsumers).SinceStepanianwasdecidedunderfederallaw,thisCommentwillfocus
onthefederalaspectofthisconflict.
108Id.at62728.

109BLACKSLAWDICTIONARY514(9thed.2009).

110Seeid.

111SeeElgie,supranote107,at62628.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 259

IdentityTheftandAssumptionDeterrenceAct,112theGrammLeachBliley
Actof1999,113theIdentityTheftPenaltyEnhancementAct,114andthemost
recent directive that the Sentencing Commission again increase the
penaltiesforidentitytheft.115CongresssstatedgoalinpassingtheIdentity
TheftandAssumptionDeterrenceActwastorecognizetheseriousnessof
identity theft and to pass legislation aimed at deterring identity crimes
through increased sentencing.116 The GrammLeachBliley Act was
intended to modernize the American banking system, including the
recognition and criminalization of identity theft from financial
institutions.117 In passing the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act,
Congress specifically described its intent to combat identity theft through
the imposition of more aggressive penalties.118 In 2008, Congress ordered
additionalincreasesoverthepreviousGuidelinessentencingprovisions.119
Further,theGuidelineslistdeterrencefirstamongitsprimarypurposes.120
Fromalloftheabove,itiseasytoconcludethatCongressintendedtomake
deterrenceacentralfeatureofsentencinginidentitycrimes.
The First Circuits holding in Stepanian aligns itself with Congresss
goal by escalating the penalties for identity theft as more peoples
identifyinginformationistakenandused,regardlessofwhobearsthefinal
loss.121 In its deliberations before passing the Identity Theft Penalty

112Pub.L.No.105318,112Stat.3007(1998)(codifiedat18U.S.C.1028and28U.S.C.994

(2006));seesupranote15andaccompanyingtext.
113Pub.L.No.106102,521,113Stat.1338,1446(1999)(codifiedat15U.S.C.6821(2006)).

This Act prohibits the obtaining of customer information from financial institutions under
false pretenses. 15 U.S.C. 6821. The penalties for a knowing or intentional violation range
fromfinestouptotenyearsimprisonment.Id.6823.
11418U.S.C.1028A;seesupranotes2832andaccompanyingtext.

115FormerVicePresidentProtectionActof2008,Pub.L.No.110326,209,122Stat.3560,

3564.
116S. REP. NO. 105274, at 9 (1998) ([The Act] will fulfill its primary purposes of

criminalizingthetheftandmisuseofpersonalinformationandprovidinglegalrecognitionof
individualvictims.Identity thieveswillnolongerbeabletoactwithimpunity,and thelaw
willhaveanunquantifiablevalueasadeterrent.).
117See15U.S.C.6821;supranote113andaccompanyingtext.

118H.R. REP. NO.108528,at45,9(2004)(As[identitytheft]increases,wemusttrytofind

newwaystocombatit....Undercurrentlaw,manyperpetratorsofidentitytheftreceivelittle
or no prison time. That has become a tacit encouragement to those arrested to continue . . .
suchcrimes....[TheAct]isintendedtoreducetheincidenceofidentitytheftandfraudand
address the most serious criminals by providing stronger penalties for those who would
commitsuchcrimesinfurtheranceofothermoreseriouscrimes.).
119209,122Stat.at3564.

1202008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,ch.1,pt.A(1)(2).

1212009 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 80, 2B1.1(b)(2). The Guidelines require the

greatestofthefollowingenhancementstoaccountforthenumberofvictimsimpacted:(1)two
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

260 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

Enhancement Act, Congress noted with disapproval the fact that identity
thieves often received little or no prison time for their crimes.122 The First
Circuits broad definition of victims should remedy this concern by
makingiteasierforcourtstoimposenumberofvictimsenhancementson
identity thieves, resulting in increased sentences.123 This approach was
endorsed by thenPresident George W. Bushs Identity Theft Task Force,
which concluded that such a definition of victims furthered the goal of
preventing identity theft through more aggressive sentencing and
deterrence.124 That the Sentencing Commission, when ordered to increase
the penalties for identity theft, adopted a similar definition indicates that
the Commission felt that such a definition would increase sentences and
enhancedeterrence.125

B. WhiletheBroaderDefinitionofVictimsAdoptedbytheStepanian
CourtIsProportionate,theSentencingCommissionsDefinition,and
ItsUnderlyingMotivation,MayIncreasetheRiskof
DisproportionateSentencingintheFuture.

Asdiscussedabove,proportionalityisanimportantfeatureincriminal
sentencing.126 While the decision in Stepanian correctly addressed the
question of proportionality, that decision was made against the
background of a complicated statutory structure that required sentencing
fortwodistinctcrimes.127Furthercomplicatingmatterswasthefactthatthe
courthadsomediscretionoveronesentence(foraccessdevicefraud)but
had no control over the sentence for aggravated identity theft.128 As state
andfederallegislaturescontinuetopursueaggressivemeasurestoprevent
andpunishidentitytheft,itisconceivablethatmoremandatorysentencing
structureslikethatinthe IdentityTheftPenaltyEnhancementActwillbe
passed.129 While decisions like Stepanian achieve proportionality in the
areas in which judges still have discretion in sentencing, such sentencing
mayultimatelyprovetobedisproportionateinlightoftheadditional,non
discretionary, sentences imposed against identity thieves. Additionally,

levels for crimes with more than ten victims; (2) four levels for crimes with more than fifty
victims;and(3)sixlevelsformorethan250victims.Id.
122H.R.REP.NO.108528,at5(2004).

123SeeUnitedStatesv.Stepanian,570F.3d51,5758(1stCir.2009).

124SeeTASKFORCEPLAN,supranote8,at68.

125SeeHutchison,supranote77,atx.

126SeesupraPartIII.A.1.

127Stepanian,570F.3dat54.

128Seesupranotes3031andaccompanyingtext.

129Seesupranotes11220andaccompanyingtext.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 261

the recently promulgated amendments to the Guidelines, as well as the

intentbehindthem,raisethepossibilityofdisproportionatesentencingfor
identitytheftinthefuture.130

1. MandatoryMinimumsMakeProportionateSentencing
MoreDifficult,EvenWhenUsingProportionateMethods
UndertheGuidelinesandCaseLaw.

Aggravated identity theft is not an independent crime; it can only be

charged when a defendant commits a qualifying underlying offense.131
Once convicted of aggravated identity theft, however, a defendant is
subjecttoamandatorytwoyearprisonsentenceinadditiontohissentence
for the underlying offense.132 As it is mandatory, the twoyear sentence
cannotbeadjustedbyjudicialdeterminationorthroughtheGuidelines.133
However, the courts and Guidelines do play a role in determining the
sentence for the underlying offense.134 By adopting a broad definition of
victims for determining a sentence for the underlying offense, the First
Circuit has better aligned the sentence for the underlying crime to the
magnitudeofitsimpact.135However,whenaproportionatesentenceforan
underlying crime is combined with a mandatory twoyear sentence for
aggravated identity theft, it is possible that a disproportionate result may
occur.136TheIdentityTheftPenaltyEnhancementActforbidscourtstotake
its twoyear mandatory sentence into account when sentencing the
underlying offense.137 Taken in combination with Congresss restrictive
mandatory sentence, the broad definition of victims established in
Stepanian and adopted by the Sentencing Commission may result in

130SeeHutchison,supranote77,atix.

13118U.S.C.1028A(a)(2006).

132Id.

133Since the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act specifies the exact sentence for a
violation, there is no leave for courts to make upward or downward adjustments in that
sentence.Id.
134Crimes like access device fraud do not carry a mandatory sentence and are therefore

subject to judicial sentencing determinations, and can be influenced by the Guidelines. 18

U.S.C.1029(a)(2),(c)(2006).
135SeesupraPartIII.A.1.

136See,e.g.,H.R. REP. NO.108528,at27(2004).InoppositiontotheIdentityTheftPenalty

Enhancement Act, Congressman Robert Scott (DVA) discussed the distortive effect
mandatorysentenceshaveontheadministrationofjustice.Id.Inparticular,hefocusedonthe
fact that the sentence must be imposed regardless of whether it is proportionate or fulfills
Congresssgoals.Id.
13718U.S.C.1028A(b)(3)([A]courtshallnotinanywayreducethetermtobeimposed

for such [underlying] crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any
separatetermofimprisonmentimposedortobeimposedforaviolationofthissection.).
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

262 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

sentences that no longer achieve the proportionality central to the

Guidelines.138ThisCommentdoesnotarguethatStepanianssentencewas
disproportionate,butitisnoteworthythat,inStepanianscase,acountof
aggravated identity theft added a mandatory twentyfour months to his
underlying identity theft sentence of fortyeight months, a fifty percent
increase over the underlying Guidelinesdriven sentence.139 In fact, the
mandatory minimum added more time to Stepanians sentence than the
inclusion of over 200 additional victims resulting from the First Circuits
interpretationofsection2B1.1.140Allotherrelevantfactorsbeingequal,as
the number of victims falls, the mandatory minimum represents an ever
increasingportionofthetotalsentence.141Whilethismaynotnecessarilybe
disproportionate,ifadditionalmandatoryminimumsareadded,sentences
could rapidly become disconnected from the harm caused to the thieves
victims.
Given the gravity of potential harm caused by identity theft,
Congresss attempt to deter identity theft through rigid mandatory
minimums is understandable.142 However, the minimum sentence for
aggravated identity theft does not address the number of victims or the
scope of harm caused by a particular defendant, and it, by design,
disregards any other sentence that may or should be imposed.143 The
Guidelines, on the other hand, were intended to consider all elements of
thecrime,thedefendant,andthescopeofharmcausedbyidentitytheft.144
In relation to deterrence, the Guidelines already incorporate a minimum
sentenceforaccessdevicefraud.145GiventhattheGuidelinesalreadyhave

138See2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,ch.1,pt.A(1)(3).

139SeeUnitedStatesv.Stepanian,570F.3d51,54(1stCir.2009).

140Given Stepanians criminal history and the circumstances of the case, the difference

betweenatwolevelenhancementforhavingtwentysixvictims(theindemnifyingbanks)and
asixlevelenhancementforhavingover250victims(includingtheindemnifiedcardholders)
is sixteen to twenty months, compared with the mandatory addition of twentyfour months
for aggravated identity theft. See 2008 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 33, app. G
(calculatingthat,withtwentysixvictims,Stepaniansoffenselevelwouldhavebeennineteen
(with a sentencing range of thirty to thirtyseven months), while with over 250 victims, the
offenselevelwastwentythree(withasentencingrangeoffortysixtofiftysevenmonths)).
141See id. 2B1.1(b)(2). If he had had fewer than ten victims, Stepanian would not have

receivedanynumberofvictimsenhancement,butwouldhavereceivedthesamemandatory
minimumforaggravatedidentitytheft.Seeid.2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i).Stepanianwouldhavefaced
atwentyfourtothirtymonthsentenceforaccessdevicefraudandanadditionaltwentyfour
monthsforaggravatedidentitytheftwouldnearlydoublethatsentence.Seeid.2B1.1(b)(10).
142SeesupraPartI.

143See18U.S.C.1028A(b)(3)(2006);seealsoH.R.REP.NO.108528,at27(2004).

144See 2009 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 80, 2B1.1(b) (specifying the factors to

considerwhensentencingcriminalsforeconomiccrimeslikeidentitytheft).
145See id. 2B1.1(b)(10) (establishing a minimum offense level of twelve for access device
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 263

thestructuresinplacetoassessandsentencecriminalsinaccordancewith
the principles of proportionality and deterrence,146 it may be preferable to
eliminate the mandatory minimum for aggravated identity theft and
incorporate the sentence for such crimes into the existing Guidelines
framework. Under this approach, rather than applying two separate
mandatory minimumsentences,147 plus anumberofvictims enhancement
toacriminallikeMikaelStepanian,therewouldbeasingle,proportionate
sentence that is based upon not only the nature of the crime, but also its
impact,thenumberofvictims,andtheamountoffinancialharmcausedby
thecrime.148
It is important to note that this problem appears to be largely
hypothetical at this time, and that it will take the passage of additional
mandatory identity theft sentencing statutes to make the risks discussed
here a reality.149 For example, twothirds of Stepanians sentence was set
throughtheproportionateapplicationoftheGuidelines,andonethirdwas
setthroughthemandatorysentencingrequirement.150However,incoming
years, courts will need to be aware of the risk for disproportionate
sentencingifandwhennewlegislationispassedtocombatidentitytheft.

2. TheRecentAmendmentstotheGuidelinesReflectan
IncreasedEmphasisonLongerSentences.

WhiletherecentamendmentstotheSentencingGuidelinesadoptedan
approach substantially similar to that adopted by the Stepanian court and
other circuits, the Sentencing Commissions rationale appears to be quite
differentfromtheFirstCircuits.InStepanian,thecourtframeditsholding
intermsofproportionality.151Itadoptedabroaddefinitionofidentitytheft
to encompass the magnitude of the crime and to tailor the sentence to
proportionately reflect the number of injured persons.152 The Sentencing

andidentitycrimesandaddingatwolevelenhancementtotheoffenselevel).
146See2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,ch.1,pt.1(A)(3).
147The
two mandatory minimum sentences would be the aggravated identity theft
minimumunder18U.S.C.1028Aandthetwelvelevelminimumdictatedbysection2B1.1of
theGuidelines.
148See2009 SENTENCING GUIDELINES,supranote80,2B1.1(b)(adjustingthesentencelevel

for a variety of factors, including the amount of loss, number of victims, the nature of the
offense,andthemeansusedincommissionoftheoffense).
149Seesupranotes13538andaccompanyingtext.

150United States v. Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir. 2009). Of Stepanians sixyear
sentence, he received four years for the underlying offense of access device fraud and two
yearsforaggravatedidentitytheft.Id.
151Seeid.at58.

152Seeid.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

264 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|245

Commission,ontheotherhand,adoptedabroaderdefinitioninresponse
to a congressional order to increase the penalties for identity theft.153
WheretheFirstCircuitsstatedmotivationwasproportionality,Congresss
was deterrence.154 At present, this distinction may make little difference
since the outcomes are essentially the same: both treat individual
cardholders as victims of identity theft.155 However, as the battle
between government and identity thieves continues, Congress may again
direct the Sentencing Commission to increase penalties or to change the
structureoftheGuidelinestofurtherdeteridentitythieves.Inlookingat
legislationoverthelastdecade,itisclearthatthebalanceinprioritieshas
shiftedtopunishmentanddeterrenceratherthanproportionality.156
In 2003, the average sentence for fraud was approximately twenty
months,157 while in 2009, it had increased to approximately twentynine
months.158 This data indicates that sentences for fraud have increased
nearlyfiftypercentbetween2003and2009.159Whiletheincreasinglength
offraudsentencescannotbeattributedsolelytoincreasedpunishmentsfor
identity thieves, it is important to consider the impact such punishments
haveonthenatureofsentencing.WhiledeterrenceisoneoftheGuidelines
goals,itisnotthesolepurposeofcriminalsentencing.160
At present, the Stepanian court (applying the principal of
proportionality)andCongressandtheCommission(applyingprincipalsof
deterrence) have adopted a definition of victims that appears to
proportionally sentence identity thieves.161 However, as the pressure

153See Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act, Pub. L. No. 110326, 209(a), 122

Stat. 3560, 3564 (2008) ([T]he United States Sentencing Commission shall review its
guidelinesandpolicystatementsapplicabletopersonsconvictedof[identitytheftandrelated
crimes] in order to reflect the intent of Congress that such penalties be increased in
comparisontothosecurrentlyprovided....).
154Compare Stepanian, 570 F.3d at 58 (discussing the proportionality of the First Circuits

definition),with209(b),122Stat.at3564([T]heUnitedStatesSentencingCommissionshall
consider[severalfactors]inordertocreateaneffectivedeterrent tocomputercrimeandthe
theftormisuseofpersonallyidentifiabledata....).
155CompareStepanian,570F.3dat5556,58,with209(a),(b)(12),122Stat.at3564.
156SeesupraPartI.B.

157U.S. SENTENCING COMMN, STATISTICAL INFORMATION PACKET: FISCAL YEAR 2003, FIRST

CIRCUIT 10 tbl.7 (2003) [hereinafter 2003 SENTENCING STATISTICS], available at http://www

.ussc.gov/JUDPACK/2003/1c03.pdf.
158U.S. SENTENCING COMMN, STATISTICAL INFORMATION PACKET: FISCAL YEAR 2009, FIRST

CIRCUIT10tbl.7(2009),availableathttp://www.ussc.gov/JUDPACK/2009/1c09.pdf.
159Compareid.,with2003SENTENCINGSTATISTICS,supranote157,at10tbl.7.

160See
2008 SENTENCING GUIDELINES, supra note 33, ch. 1, pt. A(1)(3); supra text
accompanyingnote87.
161See United States v. Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51, 5758 (1st Cir. 2009); 2009 SENTENCING

GUIDELINES,supranote80,2B1.1.
AYOTTE_FINALPG245265PROOFED(DONOTDELETE) 1/10/20119:46:49AM

2010 United States v. Stepanian 265

mounts to deter identity theft through the imposition of everincreasing

punishments, it will be important for courts, lawmakers, and the
Sentencing Commission to remember that proportionality should play an
important role in any sentencing structure. In this way, the Stepanian
decision, though reaching the same basic conclusion as the Sentencing
Commission, may actually be a better model for future revisions in this
area.162Byfocusingonthemagnitudeoftheoffenderscrimeandthescope
of its harm, policymakers can develop proportionate methods of
punishmentanddeterrencewithlessriskofdevelopinganinconsistentor
disproportionatesentencingstructure.

CONCLUSION
As identity thieves become more sophisticated, federal and state
governmentswillcontinuetotakeaggressiveactiontopreventsuchcrimes
and protect the integrity of the financial system and U.S. economy.163 As
part of the current statutory and jurisprudential landscape, the Stepanian
decision and the Sentencing Commissions revision to the Guidelines
further the battle against identity theft by sentencing identity thieves in
proportion to the magnitude of their crimes.164 By including the
cardholders whose funds were withdrawn by thieves in the definition of
victims when sentencing such criminals, sentencing decisions under
StepanianandtherevisedGuidelineswillbetterreflectthepracticalreality
thattheharmcausedbyidentitytheftgoesbeyondthefinalmonetarycost
ofthecrime.165However,suchabroaddefinitionofvictimsisnotwithout
risks.166Asgovernmentsworktodeteridentitythievesthroughevermore
stringent penalties, courts may soon face the question of whether all of
these deterrents, when taken together, still uphold the fundamental goals
of criminal sentencing.167 As the catandmouse game168 between the
authoritiesandidentitythievescontinues,courtswillbeforcedtobalance
deterrenceandproportionalityinabattlewitheverincreasingstakes.169

162CompareStepanian,570F.3dat58,withIdentityTheftEnforcementandRestitutionActof

2008, Pub. L. No. 110326, 209(a), 122 Stat. 3560, 3564 (2008) (directing the Sentencing
Commissiontoincreasepenalties).
163SeesupraPartII.A.

164SeeStepanian,570F.3dat5758;2009SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote80,2B1.1.

165SeesupraPartIII.A.1.

166SeesupraPartIII.B.

167See2008SENTENCINGGUIDELINES,supranote33,ch.1,pt.A(1)(3).

168SeeElgie,supranote107,at621.

169SeesupraPartIII.A.