United States v. Magassouba, 619 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2010) (full-text).
Appellate Court Proceedings Edit
The appellate court held that in a prosecution under section 1028A, where venue is appropriate for the felony offense that serves as a predicate for the aggravated identity-theft charge (e.g., mail fraud or wire fraud), “so too is venue appropriate for a prosecution of the separate crime of knowingly transferring, possessing, or using a means of identification of another person ‘during and in relation to’ that offense,” even when there is no evidence that the defendant “transferred, possessed, or used another person’s means of identification within that district.”
This decision, in a case of first impression, is important because it provides the necessary authority appropriately to charge identity thieves whose identity-theft and associated criminal conduct takes place in more than one jurisdiction.
- ↑ Id.