Question by beren: Should the burden of proof shift to the creditors in cases of stolen identity?
In many cases involving stolen identity, the consumer does nothing wrong. Generally the fault is with the creditor for not performing due dilligence. In some cases the identity information is stolen from the creditors themselves. Yet in all cases, it is up to the consumer to prove that that they are not responsible for the debt. Should we pass laws to shift the burden of proof? Would this make creditors more catious about how they handle consumer’s information and giving credit?
Best answer:
Answer by Jo
Absolutely-but they have more money and can buy off congress.
I also think that the thief (if caught) should remain in jail doing hard labor until every bit of the victims record and money is back to where it should be. No time limit for the victim to get all of their ducks back in a row.
What do you think? Answer below!
The Burden of Proof falls on whoever is bringing the charges.
If the theft was due to the creditor, then they do usually get sued over it. But otherwise, it would be too easy for anyone to just claim that their identity was stolen just to get out of paying a bill. Then the creditor would have to recoup those losses, and they will jack interest rates up a lot higher than they currently are.
Poster ‘davidnef’ is correct…the burden of proof rests with the suing creditor (regardless of the situation, e.g. ‘stolen’ identity). The problems are that the de facto standards of proof are often low and that pro se defendants are ill equipped to challenge them or financially unable to retain competent representation to do so. RJ