Angry in the Great White North

From Toronto Police Services (via email):

On Tuesday, August 29, 2006, police were called to a store in the Bayview Avenue/Sheppard Avenue East area for a woman using a fraudulent credit card.

It is alleged that the woman was attempting to pick up merchandise purchased by her with a fraudulent credit card.

It is further alleged that:

• the woman was an employee of a major insurance company,
• through the course of her employment, she obtained the victims' personal information,
• with the information, she would apply for and use credit cards,
• at the time of her arrest, she was in possession of credit cards in the name of five different people.

Marilyn Linton, 44, of Toronto, has been charged with:

1. Personation with intent,
2. Obtaining Credit by Fraud or False Pretence,
3. Possession Property Obtained by Crime (under),
4. Fraud Under,
5. Five counts of Possession Property Obtained by Crime (under),
6. Criminal Breach of Trust.

She appeared in court on Wednesday, August 30, 2006, at 444 Yonge Street, College Park, in courtroom 504 at 10 a.m.

The insurance company is currently taking steps to ensure the security and confidentiality of their clientele.

The last charge is the significant one. She was in a position of trust, and she betrayed that trust to a criminal level. But without knowing which insurance company she worked for, how can that trust be restored? The "steps" being taken are just as likely to be devoted to protecting the insurance company against immediate liability, including destroying records or otherwise limiting the exposure of the company to legal action, either criminal or civil. Fair enough. But it's not up to the police to help the company clean up its mess or hide its dirty laundry. Identity fraud has been committed, and every consumer who has insurance is at risk of having been one of the people whose credit has been damaged by Linton's actions. Until we know more, it could have been any of us.

This was a "major" insurance company, according to the police. Does that mean having clients all over Ontario? All over Canada? Farther away than that?

The police ought to be providing information to help those of us in the community who have not been affected by this particular crime know that their information was not available to Marilyn Linton, and help those of us whose information could have been compromised take steps to repair any damage that might have been done. I bet it won't be pleasant for the insurance company which employed Linton, but that's no excuse.