Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448As used in this article, the term:
(Code 1981, §16-9-120, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 865, § 2; Ga. L. 2002, p. 551, § 2; Ga. L. 2013, p. 1059, § 1/SB 170; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 13/SB 148.)
- Disposal by business of personal identification data, § 10-15-1 et seq.
Use of personally identifiable data in court documentation, § 15-10-54.
Fraudulent driver's license or identification, § 40-5-125.
Fraudulent identification card for persons with disabilities, § 40-5-179.
- For article, "The Growing Threat of Identity Theft and Its Implications for Employers," see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 27 (2006). For note on the 2002 amendments of §§ 16-9-120 to16-9-127 and enactment of §§ 16-9-128 to16-9-132 in this article, see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 81 (2002).
- 37 C.J.S., Forgery, § 1 et seq.
- Evidence was sufficient to convict a defendant of identity fraud because for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-121, the United States Treasury, the nation's foremost banking institution, fell within the ambit of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-120(5)(F); thus, when the defendant used a victim's social security number to obtain a job, the defendant accessed the victim's Internal Revenue Account, and thereby the United States Treasury, which was an illegal action under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-121. Hernandez v. State, 281 Ga. 559, 639 S.E.2d 473 (2007).
Construction with O.C.G.A. § 16-9-121. - Because the state's evidence failed to demonstrate that the defendant accessed the resources of another by using identifying information to procure a cell phone, and a service contract for the cell phone, and failed to establish that the defendant either knew that a store clerk: (1) could not issue a phone without accessing the resources of a specific individual; (2) would need to use the identifying information of that individual to access such resources; or (3) in fact used such identifying information to access the resources of another for the purpose of providing the defendant with a cell phone, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction of financial identity fraud. Jones v. State, 285 Ga. App. 822, 648 S.E.2d 133 (2007).
- Defendant's identity fraud conviction was upheld on appeal as: (1) a jury charge under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-120(2) was not supported by the evidence; (2) an additional charge on the dictionary definition of fraud as a false representation of a matter of fact did not result in any prejudice; (3) the indictment was sufficient and plainly tracked the language of the identity fraud statute, laid out the elements of the offense, and allowed the defendant to prepare a defense; (4) the trial court's imposition of the maximum 10-year sentence was not unlawful; and (5) nothing in the record supported the defendant's claim that the state engaged in illegal plea bargaining tactics. Lee v. State, 283 Ga. App. 826, 642 S.E.2d 876 (2007).
Defendant's identity fraud conviction was upheld on appeal because the state presented sufficient evidence that the defendant attempted to open a bank account using the identity of another person, recording that person's social security number in doing so, with the intent to obtain that person's resources in one way or another. Vicks v. State, 289 Ga. App. 495, 657 S.E.2d 876 (2008).
Trial court properly denied a defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal with regard to the defendant's conviction for identity fraud as sufficient evidence supported the conviction based on the state establishing that the defendant used the victim's personal information and credit to purchase a car by having another person use the victim's personal information and represent themselves as the defendant's relative and serve as the defendant's co-signer for the vehicle. Powell v. State, 293 Ga. App. 442, 667 S.E.2d 213 (2008).
Defendant was properly convicted of financial identity fraud in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-120 because the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to authorize a jury to find that the defendant, either directly or as a party to a crime under O.C.G.A. § 16-2-20, committed financial identity fraud by accessing the resources of the victims through the use of identifying information without the authorization or permission of the victims, with the intent to unlawfully appropriate their resources to the defendant's own use; the federal tax identification number of either victim was required as part of the credit card application to obtain temporary charge passes, which the defendant used to purchase thousands of dollars worth of merchandise in a short period of time. Zachery v. State, 312 Ga. App. 418, 718 S.E.2d 332 (2011).
No results found for Georgia Code 16-9-120.