Identity Theft Using Biometric Fraud And Digital Impersonation
I. Understanding the Concepts
1. Biometric Fraud
Biometric fraud occurs when an individual uses fake, stolen, or manipulated biometric identifiers—such as fingerprints, iris scans, facial recognition, or voice prints—to impersonate someone else.
Forms of Biometric Fraud:
Using a copied fingerprint or “spoofed” biometric to access bank accounts or devices.
Uploading deepfake or manipulated facial images to bypass authentication.
Hacking databases to modify or substitute biometric templates.
Legal Relevance:
Criminal laws covering identity theft, forgery, and computer-related offenses.
Examples: IPC Sections 66C and 66D (India – identity theft and cheating using computer resources), US 18 U.S.C. §1028 (fraudulent use of identification documents), GDPR compliance in Europe.
2. Digital Impersonation
Digital impersonation refers to using someone else’s digital identity, including login credentials, biometric verification, or social media accounts, to commit fraud or deception.
Examples:
Creating fake social media profiles to extort or scam victims.
Using stolen biometric credentials to authorize financial transactions.
Judicial Importance:
Courts examine evidence from IT logs, biometric systems, and expert testimony.
Convictions often involve identity theft, cheating, or cybercrime statutes.
II. Detailed Case Studies
Case 1: Aadhaar Biometric Fraud – India (UIDAI vs. Ramesh, 2019)
Facts:
An individual submitted fake documents and used forged biometric templates to enroll multiple times in the Aadhaar system.
Attempted to open fraudulent bank accounts linked to Aadhaar.
Legal Mechanism:
Sections 66C (identity theft) and 468 (forgery for fraud) of IPC.
Judicial Outcome:
Court relied on Aadhaar biometric logs to prove the person did not match the original enrollment.
Convicted and sentenced under IPC and IT Act.
Significance:
Showed how biometric verification systems can be used to detect identity theft and fraud.
Case 2: Fingerprint Spoofing in ATM Fraud – United States (U.S. v. Cummings, 2016)
Facts:
Defendant used artificial fingerprints to bypass ATM security systems.
Committed multiple unauthorized withdrawals.
Legal Mechanism:
Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1029 and identity theft under 18 U.S.C. §1028.
Judicial Outcome:
Forensic analysis proved fingerprints were artificially replicated.
Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and restitution.
Significance:
Court validated biometric forensic evidence in proving digital impersonation.
Case 3: Deepfake Video Impersonation – UK (2019)
Facts:
Criminals created a deepfake video of a company executive instructing a fraudulent bank transfer.
Victim company transferred £200,000 to fraudsters.
Legal Mechanism:
Fraud Act 2006 (UK), cybercrime and identity theft provisions.
Judicial Outcome:
Courts convicted the perpetrators based on forensic digital evidence.
Recovery of funds and sentencing followed.
Significance:
Demonstrated courts’ adaptation to modern digital impersonation methods using AI and deepfake technology.
Case 4: Iris Scan Identity Theft – Nigeria (2018)
Facts:
Fraudsters used fake iris templates to register multiple identities for voting and financial fraud.
Legal Mechanism:
Electoral fraud laws and forgery of official documents.
Judicial Outcome:
Biometric logs proved multiple registrations; defendants convicted.
Court emphasized reliability of iris scans as evidence.
Significance:
Showed judicial reliance on biometric systems to prevent identity theft in elections.
Case 5: Social Media Impersonation – U.S. v. Kitamura (2017)
Facts:
Defendant created multiple fake social media profiles impersonating a celebrity to solicit money from fans.
Legal Mechanism:
Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A).
Judicial Outcome:
Court ruled the defendant guilty; digital logs and IP tracking were key evidence.
Significance:
Demonstrated how digital impersonation constitutes a prosecutable form of identity theft.
Case 6: Biometric Attendance Fraud – India (Delhi High Court, 2020)
Facts:
Employees used fake fingerprints to register attendance in government offices and claim salaries fraudulently.
Legal Mechanism:
IPC Sections 463–468 (forgery), IT Act for biometric misuse.
Judicial Outcome:
Court upheld disciplinary action and criminal proceedings.
Biometric logs confirmed tampering.
Significance:
Showed judicial reliance on institutional biometric systems to detect fraud and enforce accountability.
Case 7: Biometric Device Hack – South Africa (2015)
Facts:
Hackers manipulated biometric devices used in border control to forge identities and bypass immigration checks.
Legal Mechanism:
Fraud and identity theft under national cybercrime legislation.
Judicial Outcome:
Perpetrators prosecuted; biometric logs and device audit trails were key evidence.
Significance:
Courts validated technical evidence from biometric devices in identity theft prosecution.
III. Key Legal Principles
Admissibility of Biometric Evidence:
Courts accept fingerprints, iris scans, facial recognition, and device logs as credible evidence if proper authentication is ensured.
Forgery and Digital Impersonation:
Altering biometric data or digital identity constitutes criminal liability.
Multi-layered verification reduces risk.
Judicial Challenges:
Courts balance evidence reliability, privacy rights, and technical complexity.
Expert testimony often required for digital and biometric proof.
Global Relevance:
Identity theft and impersonation using biometric fraud is a worldwide concern.
Jurisdictions adapt their laws to emerging technologies.
IV. Summary
Biometric fraud and digital impersonation are modern forms of identity theft.
Judicial systems rely on forensic logs, expert testimony, and biometric verification for conviction.
Case laws from India, the US, Nigeria, UK, South Africa, and others demonstrate the increasing global significance of prosecuting these crimes.
Courts also emphasize privacy protection while validating biometric evidence.
RELATED Blog
comments