In consideration of the facts as presented in the scenario, before addressing the question of whether a person can be charged with multiple violations of the credit card criminal statute, there is the primary question of whether a crime was committed at all. The statute prohibits one from “knowingly” obtaining, possessing or using another’s identification of financial information. However, the facts say that the person accidentally obtained and used someone else’s credit card. Knowingly, in criminal law often refers to the understanding that one has knowledge of the facts of the situation (LaFave, 2000). For example, the person picked up the card, looked at it, understood that it was not theirs, yet still decided to use it. Accidentally here seems to suggest that the person mistaken picked up the card, never looked at it closely, thought that it was his and put in into his wallet. Later, he used the card under the assumption that it was his. Consequently, if the person described in the scenario truly did obtain and use the credit card of another by accident, then he would not satisfy a key element of the credit card crime statute, namely knowledge that his acts were illegal. Accordingly, he should not be charged at all.
Assuming for argument, the issuing of accidentally obtaining and using as opposed to knowingly doing so is not address; under State v. Leyda, a 2006 Washington State Supreme Court case, the person described in the scenario could only be charged with one count of violating the credit card crime statute (State v. Leyda, 2006). In Leyda, the defendant, Leyda, knowingly obtained the credit of another and used it to avoid having to pay for his purchases himself. Altogether he used it four times before he was eventually arrested. Among other charges, Leyda was charged with four counts of identity theft. It is important to note that the elements of identity theft in Washington are nearly the same as the credit card crime statute of the case presented in the scenario. After trial, Leyda was convicted of a number or charges including four counts of identity theft. He appealed his conviction on the four counts stating that they violated the principle of double jeopardy, which forbids an accused from being convicted of the same crime more than once (Kaci, 1998). The Washington State Supreme Court agreed, finding that the in enacting the law the state legislature wanted to criminalize the unauthorized obtaining of another identification or financial information and knowing use of that information for illegal purposes. Accordingly, once a person satisfies these two elements in regards to one person, such as stealing their credit card, than one count of identity theft occurs. It does not matter how many times the card was used, the actual crime of identity theft was already completed. Under the court’s analysis, one could only be charged with multiple counts of identity theft if one stole credit cards from multiple people. In essence, each card taken under the elements, completes the crime. Use of the card has no bearing on the crime other than as an element of the crim. In fact, the card could be used once or 100 times, the perpetrator would still be guilty of one count of identity theft.
Applying this standard to the case in the scenario, the credit card crime statute, like in Leyda, is complete or rather terminates in regards to units of prosecution once the identity or financial information of another it knowingly obtained, possessed or used. While one use is all that is necessary to violate the crime; multiple uses are redundant as far as the crime is concerned. The point is to deter people from using without authorization another’s identity or financial information. It is not to punish them from using another’s identity several time.
References
Kaci, J.H. 1998. Criminal Procedure. Incline Village, NV: Copperhouse Publishing Company.
LaFave, W. R. (2000). Criminal Law. Minneapolis, MN: West Group.
