Chicago DUI lawyer comments on DUI offenders being the victims of identity theft

This Chicago DUI lawyer has heard of all sorts of punishments for DUI offenders and posted on some of them here, here, and here. Now comes word that DUI offenders were specifically targeted as victims of an identity theft ring.

September 15, Lancaster, PA

CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED IN CONNECTION WITH IDENTITY THEFT SCHEME TARGETING DUI OFFENDERS IN YORK AND LANCASTER COUNTIES

Dennis C. Pfannenschmidt, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, announced today that Donald E. Stoner, age 37, of Lancaster County was charged with conspiracy to commit identification fraud in connection with a scheme targeting DUI offenders in Lancaster and York Counties. Also filed today was a plea agreement indicating that Stoner has agreed to plead guilty to the charge when he appears for his arraignment in federal court. Stoner faces up to five years’ imprisonment and $250,000 in fines upon conviction of the offense.

The charge filed today indicates that Stoner and another unnamed individual searched the internet and targeted individuals who had been convicted of DUI offenses in Lancaster and York Counties. Stoner and his co-conspirator then requested the court’s files from the clerk’s office and obtained the victim’s social security number, drivers license number and other identifying information that was disclosed on documents in the file. Armed with this information, Stoner and his co-conspirator opened fraudulent bank accounts, created phony email addresses and applied for loans in the victim’s name. The proceeds of the loans were deposited into the fraudulent bank accounts and used by the co-conspirators for personal expenses. More than 100 individuals had their identities stolen and approximately $27,000 was gained as a result of this scheme. The victims have been contacted by law enforcement authorities and advised of the identity theft. The clerk of court for York and Lancaster County have also been advised of the scheme and have been asked to redact identifying information from court documents prior to release to the public.

Hmmm, is it time to re-think how much information the public is entitled to in court cases?