Identity Fraud Defense Attorney Massachusetts

Right now this may feel hopeless, especially if there are records that appear to show your name on an account or transaction you do not recognize. There are real defenses available across the entire identity fraud category, and the Commonwealth's burden on authorization and intent is high. Possible defenses include:

‍Express or implied authorization. The statute requires lack of "express authorization." Authorization can be express (written or verbal permission) or arise from a course of dealing, joint accounts, family arrangements, or business relationships. Where the alleged victim previously authorized similar use or shared the information voluntarily, the offense element fails.

‍Lack of intent to defraud. Each subsection of § 37E requires specific intent to defraud. Honest mistake, good-faith belief in authorization, accidents, and innocent use of information available through other means all defeat this element.

‍Mistaken identification. Many identity fraud cases turn on identification from surveillance footage of variable quality, computer access logs that may have multiple users, or witness identifications from brief observations. Massachusetts courts have repeatedly recognized the unreliability of identification evidence, and identity fraud cases are particularly susceptible to this defense.

‍No use of personal identifying information. For posing charges, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant actually used the alleged victim's identifying information in the transaction. Where the transaction was conducted with the defendant's own information, with publicly available information, or without identifiers actually tied to the alleged victim, the offense element fails.

‍No fraudulent intent at acquisition. For § 37E(c) charges based on obtaining identifying information, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant acquired the information with one of three specific fraudulent intents. Information obtained for legitimate purposes (employment verification, family business, research) is not within the statute.

‍Legitimate possession of devices. For § 37E(c½) cases, the Commonwealth must prove circumstances showing intent to use devices in the commission of larceny. Possession of card readers, software, biometric scanners, or similar equipment for legitimate commercial, educational, or research purposes does not satisfy the statute.

‍Disputed restitution. Mandatory restitution under § 37E(d) reaches credit-correction costs, lost wages, attorney's fees, and similar collateral expenses. These figures are often inflated, double-counted, or include costs not actually caused by the alleged offense. Contested restitution hearings can dramatically reduce the financial exposure even where the criminal case results in conviction.

‍Constitutional violations. Searches of computers, phones, accounts, and physical premises during identity fraud investigations must comply with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Statements made during merchant inquiries, bank investigations, or police questioning often raise constitutional issues. Successful suppression motions frequently dismantle these prosecutions.

‍Charge reduction strategies. Many identity fraud cases can be resolved by dismissal, by reduction to a lesser charge, or by alternative resolution that limits restitution exposure depending on what the evidence supports.

Every case is different. Call (978) 705-4537 to discuss your situation and your options.

If you have just been arrested, served with a summons, contacted by an investigator, or received a target letter, take a breath. Here is what you need to do right now.

● Don't talk to investigators from any agency, the alleged victim, banks, merchants, or fraud investigators without a lawyer present, even if you are told this is just an opportunity to clear things up
● Don't sign anything presented by the alleged victim, a financial institution, or law enforcement, including general releases, repayment agreements, or admissions, without consulting an attorney
● Don't repay the alleged loss before consulting counsel. Repayment can sometimes be the right strategy, but it must be timed carefully so it does not become evidence of fraudulent intent or admission
● Don't discuss your case with anyone except your attorney, including family members or others whose names or accounts may be involved
● Don't access the disputed accounts or platforms again, even to check or correct information. Continued access can be charged as additional counts
● Don't destroy or alter records of any kind, including emails, text messages, browser history, or device data. Spoliation creates obstruction charges and worsens the case substantially
● Preserve all relevant records including communications with the alleged victim, evidence of authorization or shared accounts, financial records, and any documents that might show the actual relationship between the parties
● Write down everything you remember about authorization, joint accounts, prior consent, and the actual circumstances of the disputed transactions
● Don't post anything about your case, the alleged victim, the disputed transactions, or your finances on social media
● Contact an experienced Massachusetts identity fraud defense attorney as soon as possible

‍Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation 24/7.

Acting quickly gives your attorney the best chance to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue, preserve favorable evidence, and build the strongest possible defense.