When the FBI Comes Calling…®
IDENTITY THEFT
18 U.S.C. §1078 (2005).
Theft of Mail
One common way identity theft occurs is through the theft of mail.18 U.S.C. §1078 covers this scenario.
It is a federal crime, punishable by a fine, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, to steal someone's mail. This means it is a crime to steal, take, destroy, embezzle, or fraudulently obtain-or attempt to do any of the previous-mail from the post office, the postal delivery person, a mailbox, or any other mail receptacle. It is also a crime to steal, take, destroy, embezzle, or fraudulently obtain-or attempt to do any of the previous-mail which has been left for collection at a collection box or other authorized mail depository. Finally, it is a crime to buy, receive, conceal, or unlawfully possess mail which has been stolen, knowing it to be stolen.
Extraterritorial Application of Section 1708.
The provisions of section 1708 have been applied extraterritorially. In United States v. Fernandez¸496 F.2d 1294 (5th Cir. 1974), a man was charged with possessing, forging, and uttering Treasury checks that had been stolen from the mail. He had negotiated the checks in Juarez, Mexico, and he unsuccessfully challenged the court's jurisdiction over the acts which had occurred in another country.
- Under the theory of objective territorial jurisdiction, the court below had the right to charge and try Fernandez for the indictment offenses. … "Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the state should succeed in getting him within its power." Fernandez at 1296 (quoting Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285 (1911).).
Possession of Stolen Mail
There are two interpretations of the elements of a possession of stolen mail charge. The first is as follows:
- That the items in question were stolen from the mails;
- That the defendant willfully possessed those items contrary to law; and
- That while possessing the items, the defendant knew they were stolen from the mail. United States v. Patterson, 664 F.2d 1346, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. Matzker, 473 F.2d 408, 409 (8th Cir. 1973).
However, other courts removed the requirement that the defendant knows the item was stolen from the mails. United States v. Gardner, 454 F.2d 534, 535 (9th Cir. 1972).The matter seems settled by the United States Supreme Court. All that is required is the knowledge that the property was stolen, not necessarily the knowledge that it was stolen from the mail. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 847 & n. 14 (1973) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 734, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1939)).Why subsequent courts continue to require knowledge the material was stolen from the mails is unclear, but suffice to say, the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue.