Introduction

Identity-related crime can be defined as all punishable activities that have identity as a target or a principal tool. In the FIDIS network, a typology of identity-related crime has been developed. It is a container concept for different forms of crime: identity fraud, which includes identity theft and unlawful identity delegation, exchange, or creation, but also unlawful identity obstruction and unlawful identity restoration. By far the most conspicuous of these is identity theft: using the identity of another existing person, without her consent, for some criminal – usually fraudulent – purpose.

Identity theft has become a household word over the past few years. This may have something to do with its thriller appeal, based on representations in movies of scary identity takeovers, but more likely it is due to the fact that identity theft is now often called one of the fastest rising crimes in the world. In particular, it is a major concern in the United States. Media headlines continuously provide the public with the most fear-igniting stories, and the problem continues to take a rather prominent place on the political agenda.

Discussions about the prevalence of identity theft, however, have cast doubt on the actual size of the problem, creating the possibility that identity theft carries elements of a hype rather than a big problem in real life. Sources, from studies to complaint databases, provide different and at times conflicting results. This is problematic, particularly since figures from the United States – where most prevalance data are available – are often quoted by other countries to indicate the increasing threat of the crime, whereas the US data are particularly controversial as they largely stem from complaint centers. Chris Jay Hoofnagle, for example, writes “we are asking the wrong people about the crime. The surveys seek to obtain information about identity theft from its victims — individuals who have the most limited view of the problem. Victims often do not know how their personal data were stolen or who stole the information.” Hoofnagle refers to previous survey studies conducted on citizens and also the data obtained by the Federal Trade Commission which exclusively relies on consumer complaints. Hoofnagle therefore proposes a solution to the problems associated with obtaining reliable and insightful data. He suggests financial institutions ought to publicize the prevalence data they maintain on identity theft in order to help create an accurate picture of the size of the identity theft problem. The data provided by financial institutions could subsequently be a significant aid in the determination of the actual size of the problem and the potential countermeasures.

In recent years, the problem – or the hype – and the subsequent need for policies and countermeasures have spread beyond the boundaries of the United States. Within the European Union, certain Member States have demonstrated similar problems. Notably the United Kingdom has produced figures and stories about the current danger of identity theft in its territory. The situation in other Member States, however, is rather vague, due to a lack of research and a growing uncertainty about the problem.

It is therefore urgently needed to get a clearer picture of the state of affairs concerning identity-related crime, in particular of identity theft, to draw more definite conclusions that can help to move forward the policy discussion and the taking of countermeasures. Rather than relying on (contested) US data and concerns – which may or may not be quite specific for the US situation – a description of actual European prevalence of identity crimes will help put our concerns about identity theft in perspective.

This report tries to help provide such a picture by shedding light on the situation in various EU Member States. In each country chapter, authors aim to paint an insightful picture of the situation based on available studies and national information on developments with regard to identity theft and other forms of identity-related crime. The chapters go beyond a discussion of mere prevalence data and also include information on vulnerabilities present in society and countermeasures available. The added value of these sections is significant. The analysis of vulnerabilities could provide crucial information with regard to the examination of which opportunities exist for perpetrators to commit identity-related crime within the different countries. The unveiling of opportunities is important in order to observe whether identity-related crime could become a big problem within certain countries and will allow countermeasures to be introduced specifically based on societal vulnerabilities. The discussion of countermeasures also indicates what has already been done against the problem, or which legal countermeasures apply, and what, as a result, should still be introduced in order to combat the issue. To find the gaps, one first needs to have an adequate overview of what already exists. Although figures on prevalence of identity-related crime appear scarce, the picture at least gives a first indication of the prevalence of identity theft in Europe, on which subsequent studies can build.

The following Member States are included in this report: Belgium, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We have chosen these not only because they are key countries in the FIDIS network that provided the infrastructure to write this report, but particularly because these countries have a policy debate about identity-related crime, so that a certain amount of reports and data are available. In addition to the European countries, for comparative purposes, a chapter on developments, prevalence data and trends in the United States is included.

3 / 34