On May 14, 1939, federal prosecutors in New York moved forward with what contemporary press and later historians regard as one of the first large-scale prosecutions focusing on organized identity fraud in the United States. The case centered on a group accused of collecting stolen names and personal details—often from mail theft and forged documents—and using them to obtain credit, cash advances and goods. The prosecution framed the activity as a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional scheme that exploited gaps in then-current credit-verification and mail-security practices. Context The late 1930s saw expanding consumer credit and greater reliance on written records for identification, but verification systems were rudimentary compared with later decades. Postal theft, forged signatures and counterfeit or altered documents were common tools for those seeking to impersonate others or assume false identities. Law enforcement had statutes addressing mail fraud, forgery and related crimes; however, prosecutions treating identity misappropriation as a distinct, large-scale criminal enterprise were rare prior to this period. The Allegations and Charges Court filings and contemporary newspaper reporting described allegations that defendants obtained names and personal data through stolen mail and forged forms, then used those identities to open accounts, secure goods on credit and cash checks. Prosecutors pursued charges under mail-fraud and related federal statutes, arguing that the scheme crossed state lines and involved systematic deception of financial institutions and merchants. Significance Although modern “identity theft” as a defined legal category developed later, the 1939 prosecution is historically notable for treating coordinated misuse of personal information as a large-scale, organized criminal activity warranting federal attention. The case highlighted limitations in retailers’ and banks’ identification practices and underscored the role of the postal system both as a vector for crime and as a focus of federal jurisdiction. Outcome and Legacy Records show the case proceeded through arraignment and trial stages in 1939; outcomes for individual defendants varied, and some convictions relied on mail-fraud or forgery statutes rather than a standalone identity-theft statute (which did not exist at the time). The prosecution contributed to broader awareness among financial institutions and lawmakers about the need for better document authentication and recordkeeping. Over ensuing decades, legislators and regulators introduced more specific laws and consumer protections addressing identity-related fraud, culminating in clearer statutory definitions and enforcement priorities by the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Limitations and Sources Contemporary reporting provides most of the public record for this case; archival court files and Department of Justice records contain fuller detail but may be fragmented. Because legal definitions and terminology have evolved, historians sometimes disagree about whether to label particular prosecutions from this era as “identity theft” in the modern sense. The description above follows the factual record of a 1939 federal prosecution involving large-scale misuse of stolen personal information while noting that later legal categories were not yet in place. Why it matters today The 1939 prosecution illustrates early tensions between expanding credit systems and lagging verification methods—tensions that continue to shape modern policy debates about identity protection, data security and the balance between convenience and safeguards in financial services.