Identity Theft Defense Lawyer
Maryland’s identity fraud statute reaches two different things, and the second one surprises people. Using another person’s identifying information to obtain something of value is an offense. So is simply possessing or obtaining that information without consent, where there is an intent to use it unlawfully. Under that provision no money has to move and no account has to be opened. At Walsh-Little Law, David Walsh-Little defends clients facing identity fraud and related financial charges in the Maryland courts and in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
David Walsh-Little spent over a decade with the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, including three years as chief of the felony trial division in the Baltimore City office, and more than four years as an assistant federal public defender. Because the federal version of this offense carries a mandatory consecutive term that Maryland has no equivalent to, having practiced in both systems matters here.
How Maryland Charges Identity Theft
Maryland prosecutes identity theft under the identity fraud statute at Criminal Law § 8-301. The statute reaches two distinct things, and people often assume only the first exists.
The first is assuming or using another person's identifying information, without consent, in order to obtain a benefit, credit, goods, services, or something else of value, or to avoid identification or prosecution. The second, and the one that surprises people, is simply possessing or obtaining another person's identifying information without consent and with the intent to use it unlawfully. Under that provision, no money has to move and no account has to be opened. Possession plus intent is enough.
Identifying information is defined broadly. It covers names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, account and routing numbers, card numbers, PINs, passwords, and biometric data. In practice, that means a photograph of a document on a phone can support a charge.
The grading follows value. Where the benefit obtained is worth at least $100 but less than $1,500, the offense is a misdemeanor carrying up to 1 year. At $1,500 it becomes a felony, and the maximum climbs with the value: up to 5 years below $25,000, up to 10 years from $25,000, and up to 20 years at $100,000 or more. Amounts obtained through a continuing course of conduct can be aggregated across a period, so as with theft, a series of small transactions can be presented as a single larger figure.
The Charge Rarely Arrives Alone
An identity fraud count is usually one of several. Theft under § 7-104 is commonly charged for the value obtained. Where a document or a signature is involved, forgery and related counts follow. Credit card offenses under Title 8 are frequently added, and where a computer or account was accessed, unauthorized access counts can appear as well.
This matters because the counts carry different elements and can resolve differently from one another. A case that looks overwhelming on the charging document may rest on one contested fact that runs through several counts at once, and narrowing that fact can affect all of them.
It also matters for exposure. Multiple counts can be stacked, so the arithmetic on a charging document rarely reflects a realistic outcome. Understanding which counts genuinely stand on their own evidence is part of assessing what a case actually presents.
The Federal Counterpart Carries a Mandatory Add-On
Identity theft is prosecuted federally as well, and one feature of the federal scheme has no Maryland equivalent. Identity fraud is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1028, but the provision that changes cases is § 1028A, aggravated identity theft. Where a qualifying underlying felony involves knowingly using the means of identification of another person, § 1028A adds a mandatory two year sentence that must run consecutively to whatever is imposed on the underlying count. A judge cannot run it concurrently and cannot suspend it.
That structure means the presence or absence of a § 1028A count can matter more than the guideline range on the primary offense. Cases move to federal court when the conduct crosses state lines, involves federally insured institutions, uses the mail or interstate wires, or targets a federal program or benefit.
The firm handles both. Where a case could plausibly be charged in either system, understanding which is likely, and what each would mean, is worth establishing early rather than after a charging decision has been made.
Reviews
David is a great lawyer to work with. He's very attentive and on top of things. He cares about his clients and is very knowledgeable. Thank you, David
I recommend David's criminal defense and DWI defense services.
Baltimore criminal defense lawyer David Walsh-Little first came to my attention over 25 years ago, when I learned about his legal assistance to Plowshares activists. Since that time, I have occasionally communicated with him and then talked with David in depth on my podcast.
I can confidently recommend criminal defendants to David for Maryland matters for which I do not offer assistance.
How These Cases Are Actually Built
Identity fraud investigations tend to follow a recognizable path, and knowing it helps explain where the weak points are usually found.
They often start with the complainant rather than the police. Someone notices an unfamiliar charge, a declined application, or a collections notice, and reports it to their bank or to a credit bureau. The institution runs its own fraud review and produces a package of account records, which is what reaches law enforcement. By the time an officer is involved, the narrative has usually been shaped by that internal review, and the sums have already been totaled by someone whose interest is recovery rather than accuracy.
From there the investigation moves to the digital trail: account access logs, IP addresses, delivery addresses, and surveillance where a physical pickup occurred. Each of those points at a location, a device, or an account, and none of them points directly at a person. The step from "this account was accessed from this network" to "this individual did it" is an inference, and it is frequently the softest part of the State's case.
Devices are usually seized late, often at arrest. That timing matters, because it means the search of a phone or laptop typically happens after the theory of the case is already formed, and the extraction is then read in support of it. How the device was seized, what the warrant actually authorized, and whether the search stayed within those limits are all worth examining rather than assuming.
Defense Strategies in Maryland Identity Theft Cases
Every case turns on its own facts. These are the lines of defense that recur in Maryland identity fraud matters.
- Consent and authority. The statute requires that the use was without consent. Shared accounts, family members using each other's cards, business partners with overlapping authority, and arrangements that were permitted at the time but later disputed are common, and they go directly to an element the State must prove.
- Intent. Under the possession provision, the State must prove an intent to use the information unlawfully. Information acquired in the ordinary course of a job, or retained without any unlawful purpose, is not the same as intent to defraud.
- Attribution. These cases are usually built on digital records, and digital records identify devices and accounts rather than people. Shared computers, shared logins, household networks, and account credentials that several people knew all weaken the link between the data and a particular person.
- Identity of the accused. Ironically, misidentification is common in identity cases. Where the evidence is an IP address, a delivery address, or surveillance of a person collecting a package, the inference to a specific individual can be thin.
- The valuation. Attempted charges, reversed transactions, and sums the complainant was reimbursed for are sometimes folded into the total. Because $1,500 separates a misdemeanor from a felony, and each higher value tier raises the maximum sentence, the figure deserves scrutiny.
- Search and seizure. Phones and computers carry most of the evidence in these cases. Whether the device was lawfully seized, whether the warrant authorized the search that was actually performed, and how the extraction was conducted are all open to challenge.
Whether any of these apply depends on the evidence in the particular case. Because the proof is largely digital, and because devices and account records are preserved or lost on their own timetables, early review tends to matter.
Why Choose David Walsh-Little as Your Baltimore Identity Theft Attorney
David Walsh-Little's background spans both state and federal criminal defense. He graduated from Fordham University and Columbia University School of Law, and during law school interned for civil rights lawyer William M. Kunstler. His first position as an attorney was with the Legal Aid Society in the Bronx, representing indigent criminal defendants.
After moving to Maryland he founded the Sowebo Center for Justice, a grass roots inner city law office. He spent over a decade with the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, including three years as chief of the felony trial division in the Baltimore City office, and more than four years as an assistant federal public defender.
Because identity cases can be charged in either system, and because the federal version carries a mandatory consecutive term, having handled both matters here. He uses that experience to examine how the State assembled its digital evidence, identify weaknesses in the attribution, and build the strongest available defense for each client.
Serving Baltimore & Surrounding Counties
Walsh-Little Law represents clients throughout the Baltimore metropolitan area in both state and federal courts.
Frequently Asked Questions: Identity Theft Charges in Maryland
Can I be charged if I never actually used the information?
Yes. Maryland's statute reaches possessing or obtaining another person's identifying information without consent where there is an intent to use it unlawfully. No transaction has to be completed. In those cases the contested question is usually intent rather than conduct.
It was a family member's card and I thought I was allowed to use it. Is that a defense?
The police want my phone passcode. Do I have to give it?
What makes a case federal rather than state?
Does paying the money back resolve it?
Contact a Baltimore Identity Theft Defense Attorney Today, Free Consultation
An identity theft charge does not have to define your future. Depending on the facts of your case, various defense strategies and legal options may be available, from the question of whether the use of the information was actually authorized to how the alleged loss was valued.
Call Walsh-Little Law today at 410-205-9337 for a free, confidential consultation. David will review your case, explain your options, and start building a defense from day one.
- Monday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Tuesday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Wednesday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Thursday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Saturday Closed
- Sunday Closed
Email Us
We look forward to receiving your questions and comments and will reply to your email promptly.
* Required Field
"*" indicates required fields
Disclaimer: The Law Office of David Walsh-Little is a Maryland Limited Liability Company established for the practice of law. The information on this website is for general information only. The content on this site is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. Visitors to this site should not rely on its content when making legal decisions. Access to the information on this website is not intended to, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship between the Law Office of David Walsh-Little, LLC and any other person or entity.
