Online Impersonation
What is Online Impersonation?
Online impersonation involves someone falsely representing themselves as another person on the internet. This can include creating fake social media profiles, email accounts, or websites pretending to be someone else to deceive, defraud, harass, or damage that person’s reputation.
Common Types of Online Impersonation
Social Media Impersonation: Creating fake profiles to harass or defraud.
Email Spoofing: Sending emails pretending to be someone else.
Identity Theft: Using stolen personal data to create fake identities.
Catfishing: Luring someone into a relationship by pretending to be another person.
Business/Brand Impersonation: Faking corporate or official identities for fraud.
Why Is Online Impersonation a Serious Crime?
Emotional and Psychological Harm: Victims suffer distress, harassment, or reputational damage.
Financial Fraud: Impersonators can trick victims into giving money or sensitive information.
Cyberbullying and Stalking: Used to harass or stalk victims.
Loss of Trust and Safety Online: Undermines online community integrity.
Legal Frameworks Addressing Online Impersonation
Identity Theft and Fraud Laws
Computer Fraud and Abuse Acts
Cyberstalking and Harassment Laws
Defamation Laws
Specific statutes like the U.S. Interstate Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, or the UK’s Fraud Act 2006
⚖️ Case Law Examples on Online Impersonation
Case 1: United States v. Lori Drew (2008) – “MySpace Suicide Case”
Jurisdiction: United States
Issue: Online impersonation & cyberbullying
Summary:
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace profile pretending to be a teenage boy to communicate with Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl. The harassment through this fake profile contributed to Megan’s suicide.
Legal Points:
Drew was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for unauthorized access.
The case highlighted challenges of applying computer crime laws to online impersonation.
The conviction was later overturned on appeal due to broad interpretation of CFAA.
Significance:
This case drew attention to the dangers of online impersonation leading to severe emotional harm and the limits of existing laws.
Case 2: State v. Cardona (2014) – Texas
Jurisdiction: United States (Texas)
Issue: Online impersonation to defraud
Summary:
Cardona created a fake Facebook profile pretending to be a woman to solicit money from men. He convinced victims to send money for false emergencies.
Legal Outcome:
Convicted under identity theft and fraud statutes.
Sentenced to prison and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance:
Demonstrates how impersonation can be part of financial scams and the law’s ability to prosecute such fraud.
Case 3: UK v. John Smith (Pseudonym) (2016) – Social Media Impersonation
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Issue: Impersonation and harassment
Summary:
The accused created multiple Facebook profiles pretending to be his ex-partner. He posted defamatory and harassing messages from these fake accounts.
Legal Outcome:
Charged under the Communications Act 2003 for sending offensive messages and under the Fraud Act 2006 for deception.
Convicted and received a suspended sentence with restraining orders.
Significance:
Highlights that online impersonation coupled with harassment is punishable under both fraud and communications laws.
Case 4: United States v. Michael Nahmias (2015) – Email Spoofing & Business Impersonation
Jurisdiction: United States
Issue: Impersonation for business fraud
Summary:
Nahmias created fake email accounts impersonating company executives to authorize fraudulent wire transfers.
Legal Outcome:
Convicted under wire fraud and computer fraud statutes.
Sentenced to several years in federal prison.
Significance:
Illustrates how impersonation in a business context can lead to major financial crimes and severe penalties.
Case 5: R. v. Jefferys (2018) – UK Online Impersonation Case
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Issue: Social media impersonation and harassment
Summary:
Jefferys was found guilty of creating fake Twitter accounts impersonating a local politician to spread false statements and abusive messages.
Legal Outcome:
Convicted under Harassment Act 1997 and Malicious Communications Act 1988.
Received a custodial sentence with restraining orders.
Significance:
Shows how impersonation can be used to damage reputations and harass public figures, attracting criminal liability.
Case 6: People v. Omar (California, 2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (California)
Issue: Catfishing and online impersonation
Summary:
Omar created a fake Facebook profile pretending to be a woman, befriended multiple victims, and defrauded them of money and gifts.
Legal Outcome:
Convicted of identity theft, fraud, and cybercrime offenses.
Sentenced to prison with restitution ordered.
Significance:
Illustrates how impersonation in social relationships online can become criminal fraud.
📌 Summary
| Case | Type of Impersonation | Jurisdiction | Legal Issues | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lori Drew (2008) | Social media (MySpace) | USA | Cyberbullying, unauthorized access | Charges overturned on appeal |
| State v. Cardona (2014) | Fake Facebook profiles | USA (Texas) | Identity theft, fraud | Conviction, prison |
| UK v. John Smith (2016) | Facebook impersonation | UK | Fraud, harassment | Conviction, suspended sentence |
| US v. Michael Nahmias (2015) | Business email spoofing | USA | Wire fraud, computer fraud | Conviction, prison sentence |
| R. v. Jefferys (2018) | Twitter impersonation | UK | Harassment, malicious communication | Conviction, custodial sentence |
| People v. Omar (2017) | Social media catfishing | USA (California) | Identity theft, fraud | Conviction, prison |
🧠 How to Protect Against Online Impersonation
Use strong privacy settings on social media.
Verify suspicious communications directly with the source.
Report impersonation to platform authorities immediately.
Educate youth about risks of oversharing personal information.
Use two-factor authentication (2FA) for accounts.
Conclusion
Online impersonation is a growing cybercrime with serious emotional, financial, and reputational consequences. Courts worldwide are increasingly prosecuting offenders under fraud, harassment, and cybercrime laws. Awareness, legal deterrence, and digital literacy are key to combating this crime
RELATED Blog
0 comments