(a) A person who knowingly obtains, possesses, or uses identifying information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the person is the other person for the purposes of making financial or credit transactions in the other person's name, to obtain anything of value, benefit, or advantage, or for the purpose of avoiding legal consequences is guilty of a felony punishable as provided in G.S. 14-113.22(a).
(b) The term "identifying information" as used in this Article includes the following:
(1) Social security or employer taxpayer identification numbers.
(2) Drivers license, State identification card, or passport numbers.
(3) Checking account numbers.
(4) Savings account numbers.
(5) Credit card numbers.
(6) Debit card numbers.
(7) Personal Identification (PIN) Code as defined in G.S. 14-113.8(6).
(8) Electronic identification numbers, email names or addresses, internet account numbers, or internet identification names.
(9) Digital signatures.
(10) Any other numbers or information that can be used to access a person's financial resources.
(11) Biometric data.
(12) Fingerprints.
(13) Passwords.
(14) Parent's legal surname prior to marriage.
(c) It shall not be a violation under this Article for a person to do any of the following:
(1) Lawfully obtain credit information in the course of a bona fide consumer or commercial transaction.
(2) Lawfully exercise, in good faith, a security interest or a right of offset by a creditor or financial institution.
(3) Lawfully comply, in good faith, with any warrant, court order, levy, garnishment, attachment, or other judicial or administrative order, decree, or directive, when any party is required to do so. (1999-449, s. 1; 2000-140, s. 37; 2002-175, s. 4; 2005-414, s. 6; 2025-25, s. 29(1), (3).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
State v. Jones, 758 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. 2014).
State v. Jones, 758 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. 2014).
· cites it 27× “]G.S. 14-113.20.” N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20A(a) (2013).”
State v. Jones, 734 S.E.2d 617 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 22× “Procedural History and Evidence On 28 June 2010, Defendant Jerry Alvin White (“White”) was indicted on three counts of trafficking in stolen identities pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 . On 7 September 2010, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment against White…”
State v. Crook, 785 S.E.2d 771 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 13× “20, which provides as follows: (a) A person who knowingly obtains, possesses, or uses identifying information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the person is the other person for the purposes of making financial or credit…”
State v. Barron, 690 S.E.2d 22 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 11× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 (a) (2007). Identifying information for the purposes of this statute includes “[s]ocial security or employer taxpayer identification numbers[,]” N.”
State v. Dammons, 583 S.E.2d 606 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 (a) (2001) (emphasis added).”
State v. Faucette (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 24× “Defendant has several theories as to why there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20, but we need not reach the merits of those arguments as the State concedes that “there was insufficient evidence presented at trial…”
State v. Faucette (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 24× “Defendant has several theories as to why there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20, but we need not reach the merits of those arguments as the State concedes that “there was insufficient evidence presented at trial…”
State v. Sexton, 734 S.E.2d 295 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “The term “identifying information” includes, inter alia, social security numbers, state identification card numbers, and “[a]ny other numbers or information that can be used to access a person’s financial resources.”
State v. Rogers (N.C. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 15× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 (a) “provides, in pertinent part, that identity theft exists when a person knowingly obtains, possesses, or uses identifying information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the person is the other person…”
State v. Jones (N.C. 2014).
· cites it 20× “The uniqueness and non-fungibility of these data are what make them valuable.”
State v. Miles (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 10× “]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 (a) (2017) (emphasis added).”
State v. Fuller (N.C. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 9× “3 is substantially similar to the North Carolina offense of Identity Theft under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 (2023) for sentencing purposes.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20(a) — 7 cases
State v. Jones, 758 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. 2014).
“]G.S. 14-113.20.” N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20A(a) (2013).”
State v. Faucette (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Defendant has several theories as to why there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20, but we need not reach the merits of those arguments as the State concedes that “there was insufficient evidence presented at trial…”
State v. Faucette (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Defendant has several theories as to why there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20, but we need not reach the merits of those arguments as the State concedes that “there was insufficient evidence presented at trial…”
State v. Sexton, 734 S.E.2d 295 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
“The term “identifying information” includes, inter alia, social security numbers, state identification card numbers, and “[a]ny other numbers or information that can be used to access a person’s financial resources.”
State v. Jones (N.C. 2014).
“The uniqueness and non-fungibility of these data are what make them valuable.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20(b) — 7 cases
State v. Jones, 758 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. 2014).
“]G.S. 14-113.20.” N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20A(a) (2013).”
State v. Jones, 734 S.E.2d 617 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
“Procedural History and Evidence On 28 June 2010, Defendant Jerry Alvin White (“White”) was indicted on three counts of trafficking in stolen identities pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 . On 7 September 2010, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment against White…”
State v. Faucette (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Defendant has several theories as to why there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20, but we need not reach the merits of those arguments as the State concedes that “there was insufficient evidence presented at trial…”
State v. Faucette (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Defendant has several theories as to why there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20, but we need not reach the merits of those arguments as the State concedes that “there was insufficient evidence presented at trial…”
State v. Miles (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
“]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20 (a) (2017) (emphasis added).”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20(b)(10) — 3 cases
State v. Crook, 785 S.E.2d 771 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
“20, which provides as follows: (a) A person who knowingly obtains, possesses, or uses identifying information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the person is the other person for the purposes of making financial or credit…”
State v. Jones, 758 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. 2014).
“]G.S. 14-113.20.” N.C.G.S. § 14-113.20A(a) (2013).”
State v. Jones (N.C. 2014).
“The uniqueness and non-fungibility of these data are what make them valuable.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20(b)(2) — 1 case
State v. Crook, 785 S.E.2d 771 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
“20, which provides as follows: (a) A person who knowingly obtains, possesses, or uses identifying information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the person is the other person for the purposes of making financial or credit…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.