Federal Aggravated Identity Theft – 18 U.S.C. § 1028A

Aggravated identity theft is one of the most serious federal identity crimes. Prosecutors often pursue these charges aggressively because they carry mandatory prison time and attach to a wide range of underlying offenses. Understanding how 18 U.S.C. § 1028A applies—and how it differs from other identity theft laws—is essential when facing federal investigation or charges.

The Scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A

The statute doesn’t cover all forms of identity theft. It targets individuals who use, transfer, or possess the identifying information of another person in connection with certain federal crimes, such as bank fraud, immigration fraud, wire fraud, or healthcare fraud. The identity must be of a real, living person. Fabricated identities don’t meet the threshold.

How Federal Aggravated Identity Theft Differs From Other Identity Crimes?

Unlike general identity theft, federal aggravated identity theft doesn’t require proof of financial gain or harm. What matters is whether the identity was used knowingly during a listed federal crime. The charge comes with a mandatory two-year sentence, stacked on top of any punishment for the underlying crime.

Key Elements Prosecutors Must Prove

Knowing Use of Another Person’s Identity

The government has to prove that you knew the person’s identity was fake. By mistake or by accident, you don’t qualify. This is where many court cases begin.

Connection to Certain Predicate Federal Offenses

To invoke 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, the identity must be used in connection with a qualifying offence. These include over 60 types of crimes listed in the statute, such as theft of public funds, mail fraud, or fraud involving citizenship documents.

Requirement That the Identity Belongs to a Real Individual

This law only applies when the stolen identity belongs to a real person. If the data belongs to a fictitious character, the aggravated charge doesn’t hold.

Criminal Penalties Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A

Mandatory Two-Year Consecutive Sentence Rule

Anyone convicted under this statute faces a fixed two-year federal prison term. This sentence is served after the punishment for the underlying crime. Courts have no discretion to shorten or run it concurrently.

Sentencing Enhancements in Multiple-Count Convictions

If there are multiple violations, the judge can impose additional two-year terms consecutively. If someone is found guilty of two counts of aggravated identity theft, they may face a sentence of up to four years in addition to their base sentence.

Fines, Restitution, and Long-Term Supervision

In addition to prison, courts may also fine individuals and order them to repay what they stole from others. After being released from prison, supervised release terms may be imposed, which add additional limitations to life after prison.

Common Issues in Federal Aggravated Identity Theft Cases

Proving Knowledge of the Victim’s Identity

Prosecutors have a hard time showing that the defendant knew the identity was fake and belonged to someone else. A defense that is often used is a lack of intent or a mistake.

Mistaken Identity and False Accusations

There are cases where individuals are wrongly accused because they were near digital evidence or worked in roles with access to sensitive data. These nuances matter in a trial.

Due Process Challenges in Complex Digital Evidence Cases

Emails, IP addresses, and databases are some of the electronic evidence used in most of these charges, and it is crucial to handle this evidence properly. A prosecution case can be compromised by any break in the chain of custody or an unclear source.

Defense Strategies Against 18 U.S.C. § 1028A Charges

Arguing Lack of Intent or Knowledge

If the defense can show you didn’t knowingly use a real person’s identity, the charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A may not apply. This is a primary area where skilled attorneys press back.

Contesting Predicate Offenses Underlying the Charge

An aggravated identity theft charge can’t be brought if there isn’t a qualifying federal crime. A common way to win is to go after the main charge.

Challenging the Admissibility of Digital or Financial Evidence

Faulty data, lack of warrants, or improper collection methods can be grounds to exclude key evidence. Suppression motions are a common tactic.

Exploring Plea Negotiations to Avoid Mandatory Minimums

The law imposes harsh punishments, and plea deals often focus on having the aggravated identity theft charge dropped in exchange for admitting to a less serious crime.

Why Choosing the Right Attorney Matters?

Understanding the Nuances of Federal Aggravated Identity Theft Law

Not every attorney is experienced in federal courts. You need someone who has experience in the field of aggravated identity theft at the federal level and has the necessary tools to represent you in court.

Building a Strategy to Reduce or Dismiss Charges

Your defense should begin well before trial by evaluating evidence, filing motions, and questioning whether the predicate offense applies. A thoughtful plan can mean the difference between years in prison and walking free.

Trial Advocacy vs. Negotiated Resolutions

A smart attorney will be ready for both: to argue your case in front of a jury or to negotiate a deal that spares you the mandatory minimums.

DCD LAW’s Approach to Defending Aggravated Identity Theft Cases

Detailed Case Review and Investigation

At DCD LAW, we begin with a detailed breakdown of the evidence, line by line. We don’t rely on assumptions, and we don’t leave room for surprises.

Motion Practice to Exclude Weak or Improper Evidence

Our law firm often files motions to suppress digital information that was obtained illegally or to question the connection between you and the alleged crime.

Customized Defense Strategies for Each Client

Every client’s life, job, and priorities are different. We tailor each strategy to fit your goals, whether it’s dismissal, plea, or trial.