Prosecution need not show stolen social security numbers belonged to actual living individual for sentencing enhancement

In U.S. v. Philador the two defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to steal government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 and to the charge of theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §641. Their offenses involved a scheme to submit fraudulent tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service using stolen social security numbers. They then received refund checks from the government and deposited the funds into various corporate accounts of companies they controlled. The presentence investigation report recommended a six-level enhancement to their offense level pursuant to guidelines section §2B1.1(b)(2)(c) because it claimed the offense involved 250 or more victims. Only twenty-six of the taxpayer victims had been positively identified by the government. The defendants objected to the enhancement, and while they conceded there were more than 250 social security numbers used to file over 250 fraudulent tax returns, the defendants argued that the government failed to meet its burden because the government failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that 250 of the social security numbers were authentic and belonged to living people.

In rejecting the defendant’s argument, the 11th Circuit found the district court did not err in finding there 250 victims. There was no dispute that over 250 social security numbers were used to cause the Internal Revenue Service to issue fraudulently submitted returns. Because the Internal Revenue Service issued refunds for tax returns associated with those numbers, the district court made the “legitimate” inference that social security numbers corresponded to actual persons. The 11th Circuit has stated in prior cases that it is not necessary for the government to show that in the context of a government issued identification the government verifies an individual’s identity before it issues a driver’s license or a passport. It is reasonable to conclude that the government routinely obtains an applicant’s identity to verify the authenticity of that identity. Here the district court could infer, based on common sense and ordinary human experience that the Internal Revenue Service verifies identifying information, like social security number, before issuing a tax refund. The fact that the Internal Revenue Service paid the refund to the defendants indicates that the social security number used to procure the refunds are associated with real people and the district court’s conclusion was not erroneous.

Additionally, the district court did not err in applying the six-level enhancement without first finding the victims were living. A victim in this context under the sentencing guidelines a victim is a person whose means of identification was used unlawfully. A means of identification is limited to an actual, and not fictitious, individual. The 11th Circuit found the plain meaning of the phrase “actual” does not distinguish between living and deceased persons. Therefore it was not necessary for the district court to make this finding.

This case represents a type of identity theft involving the use of another individual’s social security numbers to file a tax return which results in the Internal Revenue Service issuing the refund to the wrong person. Prosecutions of this nature have become more common in federal courts in Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville, as well as other Florida communities because tax returns can be filed on-line.