Search

The driving force behind financial identity theft is the acquisition of financial assets. Money is the main motivator. Perpetrators of financial identity theft predominantly acquire these financial assets from financial service providers. This demonstrates the vital value of financial service providers in the overall problem of financial identity theft. The significance of financial service providers is evident; yet, the role and associated responsibility of financial service providers is often a source of conflict and inconsistency. This conflict centers around the question of whether financial service providers embody the role of victim, villain, or both with respect to identity theft. Throughout the literature, especially in the past, financial service providers have received empathy due to financial losses suffered as a result of identity theft. To many, financial service providers are the true victims of financial identity theft. Through the rise of critical academics and interest groups, the potential facilitation, or the villain aspect, of financial service providers stepped out of the ‘victim’s’ shadow. Since the acknowledgement of the facilitation of financial identity theft by financial service providers gained more prominence, the business practices used to realize such facilitation also became the object of increased scrutiny. Financial service providers predominately include banks and credit card companies. Other relevant actors included in this chapter are supervisory organs and consumer reporting agencies since their involvement in the financial world, and therefore their inclusion in this chapter, assists in the development of a more comprehensive image of the relevant interactions in the financial services sector. Furthermore, their inclusion is also vital for the background descriptions of various developments with regard to business practices. This chapter reviews business practices based on three different phases including the acquisition of clients, the application process, and the account activity of existing clients. The first two aspects are particularly relevant for the potential facilitation of true name fraud, whereas the last phase predominantly concerns account takeover.

The idea of a jigsaw puzzle is a suitable metaphor for the problem of financial identity theft. The previous five chapters provide an in-depth and detailed overview of the individual pieces of the puzzle, or rather the facilitating factors of financial identity theft. This chapter, in contrast, takes a step back to observe the entire puzzle, or the broad picture, in an effort to develop an opportunity structure. Ronald V. Clarke uses the notion of a crime opportunity structure to demonstrate the interdependent relationship between crime opportunity and a variety of societal aspects. These include socio-economic structure, including demographics and geography, as well as lifestyle/routine activity and physical environment. All of these aspects influence the core of the crime opportunity structure which contains the victims, targets, and facilitators. Since the opportunity structure takes a comprehensive approach to the social context of crime, its construction for financial identity theft must contain both the overarching features of all facilitating factors as well as an understanding of the underlying mechanisms which nurture them. This is precisely why the usage of the process tracing approach was appropriate to gain valuable background information about the underlying mechanisms which established the (potential) facilitating factors as well as the process of facilitation of financial identity theft itself.

At its most fundamental level, the idea of the state as protector of the people can be traced back to Cicero’s salus populi suprema lex esto, which translates into ‘let the good of the people be the supreme law’ or ‘the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.’ John Locke, in the Second Treatise on Government, cites Cicero’s statement when he writes “Salus populi suprema lex is certainly so just and fundamental a rule, that he, who sincerely follows it, cannot dangerously err.” The role of protector, therefore, is often considered to be the fundamental function of government. Such protection can come about through various means. The diversity of means is in part a reflection of the variety of threats that people face in contemporary society. Simultaneously, such diversity is also a manifestation of the multi-faceted nature of the state, even in its function as protector of the people. For financial identity theft, this diversity is apparent, especially since identity theft is a versatile problem which implicates many different segments of the state. Throughout the literature on identity theft, nevertheless, certain aspects consistently return. Several sources discuss the legislative developments in the criminal law arena, whereas others place an emphasis on data protection mechanisms in connection with identity theft. Both of these elements of the state’s effort to protect its people shall therefore receive extensive attention in this chapter. Furthermore, other sources also review the activities of the state as protector through its regulatory initiatives and supervisory organs with regard to business practices in connection to identity theft.