What federal laws criminalize possession or use of stolen credit card data in the United States?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal law already criminalizes trafficking in “access devices” such as credit-card numbers and authorizes extraterritorial prosecution when certain conditions are met; the Department of Justice has long argued those statutes need updating to better reach overseas sellers of stolen U.S. financial data [1]. Consumer-facing federal rules also limit cardholder liability for unauthorized charges to small amounts and create reporting pathways — protections that sit alongside, not instead of, criminal statutes used by prosecutors [2] [3].
1. Federal criminal law targets “access devices,” not just plastic
U.S. prosecutors rely on statutes that make it a crime to traffic in “access devices” — a legal term courts have held includes credit‑card numbers — and DOJ commentary explains those laws already allow prosecution of overseas sellers in some cases but have practical limits that prompted calls for legislative updates [1]. The Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs framed the problem as one of middlemen selling stolen financial information on international “carding” forums and argued the existing access‑device provisions can be hard to apply when key statutory predicates aren’t satisfied [1].
2. Extraterritorial reach exists but has real-world limits
DOJ’s archived policy post notes federal law “allows the government to prosecute offenders located outside the United States if the credit card number involved … was issued by an American company and meets a set of additional requirements,” but officials say those requirements have become “unworkable in practice” as markets for stolen data internationalized [1]. That statement shows prosecutors have statutory tools but also publicly acknowledge gaps that complicate cross‑border enforcement [1].
3. Consumer‑protection rules operate alongside criminal law
Separate federal protections limit victims’ financial exposure: federal law caps consumer liability for unauthorized credit‑card charges (commonly cited as $50 or $0 if timely reported), and agencies such as the FTC and federal banking regulators provide dispute and reporting processes [2] [3]. Those consumer remedies do not criminalize possession or sale of stolen data; instead they reduce victims’ financial harm while criminal statutes and investigations target perpetrators [2] [3].
4. State laws and breach notification regimes change the incentives
All 50 states plus territories have data‑breach notification laws that treat credit‑card numbers as reportable personal information, and many states impose separate penalties or rules for handling cardholder data — creating overlapping civil and regulatory pathways even where criminal prosecutions are challenging [4] [5]. State-level rules influence corporate behavior and can produce civil liability and enforcement actions distinct from federal criminal charges [4] [5].
5. Law enforcement and policy makers see enforcement gaps
DOJ’s public writing argues existing access‑device statutes criminalize sales of stolen financial information but that prosecutorial reach abroad and certain statutory technicalities limit effectiveness against international middlemen — hence proposals to “criminalize the overseas sale of stolen U.S. financial information” by narrowing those gaps [1]. That reveals an implicit agenda: DOJ seeks legislative fixes to make longstanding federal crimes easier to apply in the modern, globalized cyber‑market for card data [1].
6. What the sources do not cover
Available sources in this packet do not list the exact federal statute numbers (for example, the specific U.S. Code sections) used to prosecute access‑device offenses, nor do they provide example indictments or sentencing ranges for possession or use of stolen credit‑card data (not found in current reporting). The materials also do not describe recent congressional changes (if any) after DOJ’s 2017 archived post (not found in current reporting).
7. Practical takeaway for readers
If you’re assessing the legal landscape: federal criminal law targets trafficking in access devices and can reach overseas actors in some circumstances, but DOJ itself has said practical obstacles exist and has recommended limited statutory updates to improve enforcement [1]. Meanwhile, consumers are protected by federal liability caps and state breach‑notification regimes that reduce financial harm even when criminal prosecutions are difficult [2] [3] [4].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided sources; other statutes, case law, or enacted reforms may exist beyond these documents and are not reflected here (not found in current reporting).