I never understand these "identity theft" cases. This dispute has nothing to do with the person whose numbers were fraudulently used. This should be between CashApp and the scammer. At best, CashApp is the victim of bank fraud. At worst, they were negligent in allowing an account to be opened based entirely on non-secret information. Shouldn't authorities have to prove that this random person did something wrong?
>This dispute has nothing to do with the person whose numbers were fraudulently used. This should be between CashApp and the scammer.
No, because scamming people is a crime, not just a civil dispute, so the police are involved. It's like if someone got drunk and then crashed into you. You could certainly go after the driver for damages (civil), but the police can independently go after the driver criminally (drunk/reckless driving).
>Shouldn't authorities have to prove that this random person did something wrong?
They do, but there's a gap between when someone's arrested and when the trial happens, and in that time the person can detailed, have to post bail, lose their job, etc. When it does go to trial, I suspect even an overworked public defender would be able to raise reasonable doubt for her to get free, but as the saying goes, "you can beat the rap but not the ride".
I agree. The onerous nature of KYC rules is the mechanism usually used to correctly assign the problem to the person who did not run KYC well. What actually happens in these scenarios? It seems to me that the victim here should be able to sue CashApp for claiming to represent her, but that’s unlikely to work, right?
It is definitely strange if I walk up to someone and claim to be a lawyer for their employer who needs their badge. Is the employer the victim of identity theft? Doesn’t seem convincing to me.
These companies make it way too easy to create accounts. When I opened my bank accounts years ago I had to show up in person at a bank branch with proof of residency and 2 forms of ID.
It should not get this far. The identifying info they used is not real. Police and prosecutors are being criminals here. Every single person involved could have stopped this. They all chose to lie and keep her in prison and charge her.
One day, someone will be armed and won't submit to a false arrest. This is going to spiral out of hand with all the fake AI based arrests that are increasing.
> The scammer created the account using her Social Security number and date of birth. Smith said she has never used CashApp.
you can purchase Fullz on most dark net marketplaces, which is the term for ID information
unlike with using credit cards or applying for credit cards, an opened bank account will tend not to alert the ID holder, although they could monitor chexsystems its not popular
passing online fraud detection simply involves opening an account from a zip code close to the target. so the user would remote into a compromised desktop nearby as there are marketplaces for that by zip code too, or be physically present there themselves if that level of OPSEC isnt needed. here it wasnt needed as law enforcement didnt subpoena facebook marketplace, they used the cashapp info
You could have bank and brokerage accounts open in your name right now, if no fraud has been triggered you won’t be the subject of an investigation. people use them for normal transactions - income destination for undocumented, normal payment flows outside view of creditors, etc
All the banks and law enforcement and FinCEN and the Department of Justice believe anti-terror anti-money laundering and know your customer laws are working simply because bank accounts are in a name.
The police really need to get their act together on identifying whether the identity is actually the person. There are just too many of these cases where a reasonable investigation would have shown it's a stolen identity. The state has an obligation to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, that should include reasonable due diligence in verifying that it's not a stolen identity.
It's not like this is a new thing, my mother had a run-in with the IRS over not reporting "income" from a place she had never worked and couldn't even find them. (IRS: if you believe it's wrong contact your employer. No, we will not provide contact information for them.) That was 40 years ago. The attempt to make things traceable probably deters some misdeeds but in most cases it just means they leave a false trail, only of use in causing trouble for innocents.
I never understand these "identity theft" cases. This dispute has nothing to do with the person whose numbers were fraudulently used. This should be between CashApp and the scammer. At best, CashApp is the victim of bank fraud. At worst, they were negligent in allowing an account to be opened based entirely on non-secret information. Shouldn't authorities have to prove that this random person did something wrong?
>This dispute has nothing to do with the person whose numbers were fraudulently used. This should be between CashApp and the scammer.
No, because scamming people is a crime, not just a civil dispute, so the police are involved. It's like if someone got drunk and then crashed into you. You could certainly go after the driver for damages (civil), but the police can independently go after the driver criminally (drunk/reckless driving).
>Shouldn't authorities have to prove that this random person did something wrong?
They do, but there's a gap between when someone's arrested and when the trial happens, and in that time the person can detailed, have to post bail, lose their job, etc. When it does go to trial, I suspect even an overworked public defender would be able to raise reasonable doubt for her to get free, but as the saying goes, "you can beat the rap but not the ride".
I agree. The onerous nature of KYC rules is the mechanism usually used to correctly assign the problem to the person who did not run KYC well. What actually happens in these scenarios? It seems to me that the victim here should be able to sue CashApp for claiming to represent her, but that’s unlikely to work, right?
It is definitely strange if I walk up to someone and claim to be a lawyer for their employer who needs their badge. Is the employer the victim of identity theft? Doesn’t seem convincing to me.
These companies make it way too easy to create accounts. When I opened my bank accounts years ago I had to show up in person at a bank branch with proof of residency and 2 forms of ID.
they should, and they do. that's what the prosecution will attempt to prove to the jury at trial.
the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, but the defendant stands a better chance by presenting evidence that it wasn't her.
It should not get this far. The identifying info they used is not real. Police and prosecutors are being criminals here. Every single person involved could have stopped this. They all chose to lie and keep her in prison and charge her. One day, someone will be armed and won't submit to a false arrest. This is going to spiral out of hand with all the fake AI based arrests that are increasing.
Because to a large degree the "justice" system only pays lip service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.
This is pretty clearly identity theft, but to admit it would throw egg on somebody's face.
> The scammer created the account using her Social Security number and date of birth. Smith said she has never used CashApp.
you can purchase Fullz on most dark net marketplaces, which is the term for ID information
unlike with using credit cards or applying for credit cards, an opened bank account will tend not to alert the ID holder, although they could monitor chexsystems its not popular
passing online fraud detection simply involves opening an account from a zip code close to the target. so the user would remote into a compromised desktop nearby as there are marketplaces for that by zip code too, or be physically present there themselves if that level of OPSEC isnt needed. here it wasnt needed as law enforcement didnt subpoena facebook marketplace, they used the cashapp info
You could have bank and brokerage accounts open in your name right now, if no fraud has been triggered you won’t be the subject of an investigation. people use them for normal transactions - income destination for undocumented, normal payment flows outside view of creditors, etc
All the banks and law enforcement and FinCEN and the Department of Justice believe anti-terror anti-money laundering and know your customer laws are working simply because bank accounts are in a name.
The police really need to get their act together on identifying whether the identity is actually the person. There are just too many of these cases where a reasonable investigation would have shown it's a stolen identity. The state has an obligation to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, that should include reasonable due diligence in verifying that it's not a stolen identity.
It's not like this is a new thing, my mother had a run-in with the IRS over not reporting "income" from a place she had never worked and couldn't even find them. (IRS: if you believe it's wrong contact your employer. No, we will not provide contact information for them.) That was 40 years ago. The attempt to make things traceable probably deters some misdeeds but in most cases it just means they leave a false trail, only of use in causing trouble for innocents.
If there was a GoFundMe for her I'd donate.
[dead]