An Anchorage police officer who took on a false identity that masked his Mexican citizenship has been arrested and charged with passport fraud, federal officials said Friday.
At a news conference Friday, U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said that patrolman Rafael Espinoza, on the Anchorage police force for about six years, was really Rafael Mora-Lopez, a Mexican national working in the United States illegally.
The man known as Officer Espinoza -- Mora-Lopez, in reality -- was an excellent employee, Police Chief Mark Mew said. The investigation has so far not turned up any information that Mora-Lopez was involved in any other criminal activity outside the case announced Friday, Mew said.
"His problem was he lied his way into the job," Mew said.
The identity swap was discovered when the police officer applied for a U.S. passport in January and officials from the State Department found that the Rafael Espinoza identity he was using was actually another person, a U.S. citizen in the Lower 48, Loeffler said.
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/04/22/1823607/2 ... z1KUOQ5Ai4
Illegal, but at least he was working...
Illegal, but at least he was working...
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Illegal, but at least he was working...
Fixed that for them.The identity swap THEFT was discovered
Makes it a little more than just lieing your way into a job.
Sorry, got no sympathy.
Re: Illegal, but at least he was working...
He applied for a U.S. Passport?
Carumba!
Carumba!
Re: Illegal, but at least he was working...
oldr--theft? this would connote that his use of the other person's identity affected the the "real" person adversely (such as when one acquires credit in the others name). I don't see that here; more like he was just lying to get a job (illegal to be certain, but I doubt it affected the other person at all)--pretty silly to apply fro a passport though.
eta: here are somemodel jury instructions for defining the crime of identity theft in CT:
Element 1 - Knowingly used personal identifying information of another person
The first element is that the defendant knowingly used the personal identifying information of the complainant. A person acts "knowingly" with respect to conduct or circumstances when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>
"Personal identifying information" means any name, number or other information that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual including, but not limited to, such individual's name, date of birth, mother's maiden name, motor vehicle operator's license number, Social Security number, employee identification number, employer or taxpayer identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, health insurance identification number, demand deposit account number, savings account number, credit card number, debit card number or unique biometric data such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation.
Element 2 - Obtained property
The second element is that the defendant used the personal identifying information to obtain [or attempt to obtain] (money / credit / goods / services / property / medical information) in the name of the complainant. The property that the defendant allegedly obtained in the name of <insert name of complainant> is <identify the property>.
Element 3 - Without consent
The third element is that the defendant did not have the consent of <insert name of complainant> to obtain this property in (his/her) name. A person does an act "without consent of another person" when (he/she) lacks such other person's agreement or assent to engage in the act.
[<Include element 4 only for first and second degree if the victim is under 60 years of age, and only for first degree if the victim is over 60 years of age.>2
Element 4 - Value of property obtained
• <If victim is over 60 years of age:> The fourth element is the value of the property obtained [or attempted to be obtained] by the defendant using <insert name of complainant>'s personal identifying information. The value must exceed $10,000.
• <If victim is under 60 years of age:> The fourth element is the value of the property obtained [or attempted to be obtained] by the defendant using <insert name of complainant>'s personal identifying information. The value must exceed:
• First degree: $10,000.
• Second degree: $5,000.
For purposes of determining whether the state has proved the alleged degree of identity theft, the value of the (money / credit / goods / services / property) shall be ascertained as follows: "Value" here means the market value of the goods, services, or property at the time and place of the crime. "Market value" means the price that would, in all probability, result from fair negotiations between willing buyers and sellers at the time and place of the crime; the probability being based upon the evidence in the case.
If you can determine the price the property sold for at the time of the crime, then that is the controlling value. If the market value cannot be determined, then you should consider the replacement cost of the goods or services within a reasonable time after the crime.]
eta: here are somemodel jury instructions for defining the crime of identity theft in CT:
Element 1 - Knowingly used personal identifying information of another person
The first element is that the defendant knowingly used the personal identifying information of the complainant. A person acts "knowingly" with respect to conduct or circumstances when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>
"Personal identifying information" means any name, number or other information that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual including, but not limited to, such individual's name, date of birth, mother's maiden name, motor vehicle operator's license number, Social Security number, employee identification number, employer or taxpayer identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, health insurance identification number, demand deposit account number, savings account number, credit card number, debit card number or unique biometric data such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation.
Element 2 - Obtained property
The second element is that the defendant used the personal identifying information to obtain [or attempt to obtain] (money / credit / goods / services / property / medical information) in the name of the complainant. The property that the defendant allegedly obtained in the name of <insert name of complainant> is <identify the property>.
Element 3 - Without consent
The third element is that the defendant did not have the consent of <insert name of complainant> to obtain this property in (his/her) name. A person does an act "without consent of another person" when (he/she) lacks such other person's agreement or assent to engage in the act.
[<Include element 4 only for first and second degree if the victim is under 60 years of age, and only for first degree if the victim is over 60 years of age.>2
Element 4 - Value of property obtained
• <If victim is over 60 years of age:> The fourth element is the value of the property obtained [or attempted to be obtained] by the defendant using <insert name of complainant>'s personal identifying information. The value must exceed $10,000.
• <If victim is under 60 years of age:> The fourth element is the value of the property obtained [or attempted to be obtained] by the defendant using <insert name of complainant>'s personal identifying information. The value must exceed:
• First degree: $10,000.
• Second degree: $5,000.
For purposes of determining whether the state has proved the alleged degree of identity theft, the value of the (money / credit / goods / services / property) shall be ascertained as follows: "Value" here means the market value of the goods, services, or property at the time and place of the crime. "Market value" means the price that would, in all probability, result from fair negotiations between willing buyers and sellers at the time and place of the crime; the probability being based upon the evidence in the case.
If you can determine the price the property sold for at the time of the crime, then that is the controlling value. If the market value cannot be determined, then you should consider the replacement cost of the goods or services within a reasonable time after the crime.]
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Illegal, but at least he was working...
Without really studying those instructions, I would think that the persons who's identity was "borrowed" 
might end up with some IRS problems if his soc sec number was used also. In fact, I am surprised the IRS hadn't figured something out in 6 years. They are Johnny on the spot for any "honest" mistake I make. 
might end up with some IRS problems if his soc sec number was used also. In fact, I am surprised the IRS hadn't figured something out in 6 years. They are Johnny on the spot for any "honest" mistake I make.