How someone could get a new legal identity For a character in a novel, I'm at an impass as to how someone could theoretically attain a brand new, legal, government issued identity that can be used for business, banking and so on. The specific situation that this character is in is that for all intents and purposes they have no prior history as a person, they will not be found in any government data base or on the internet. What they have going for them is a very wealthy benefactor, extensive physical trauma to the brain, and following their getting an identity this character will be comming into money due to the benefactor. So far, I've looked at applying for asylum and outright buying citizenship in a country. Edit: To clarify the situation and add an alternate question. This character is a stateless person, would citizenship be needed to do business, have a bank account, etc? For the first, this would stem from her feigning amnesia, knowing her name and how to do things but little else. It is enough for a search to be made and not find anyone matching her. To assist this she would have two gunshot wounds to the head that on a CT would confirm that she suffered extensive brain damage and survived it. So her claim isn't unreasonable. There are however issues assosciated with the plot that I would have to work around. The second option I looked at is approaching countries where citizenship could be bought, such as in the case of Malta and others. However, I believe that the conventional &quot;buy citizenship in X country with an investment&quot; would require prior documentation, a background check, and you wouldnt just be allowed to get creative while filling in your information. For this I am entirely uncertain if a larger &quot;investment&quot; into said country would be sufficient for them to overlook the character having no prior documentation. Ultimately this is Fiction, so there can be flexability and suspension of disbelief can be stretched a bit or the details left a bit ambiguous, however, I believe being grounded in realism is important to the immersion of the story. With that said, I'm looking for options from those more well versed in legal matters than me.
The main documents* needed to overcome money laundering regulations etc when opening a bank account are a passport and/or driving licence. Both have multiple anti-counterfeit safeguards so gone are the days of creating your own, and master forgers are the remit of organised crime groups. By far the easiest way is to get a Fraudulently Obtained Genuine Identity (FOG-ID). Your character could find someone of a similar age who has never had a passport or licence and use their details to apply for them with her own photograph - colloquially called &quot;cukooing&quot;. This means she would have the cuckoo's name and address and, depending on her moral compass and propensity to violence, she made need to &quot;remove&quot; the risk that someone could find out and expose her. Note that in england-and-wales, under the Identity Documents Act 2010, she may face up to 10 years' imprisonment for the unlawful possession of these documents. Also, you could consider bribery and corruption. It's a fairly common trope that a corrupt government official can do almost anything by logging on to a computer but, to me, this stretches the realism too far as there are so many checks and balances and different people involved to be believable without the even more unbelievable conspiracy &quot;that goes all the way to the top&quot;. *A National Insurance / Social Security Number would be helpful but not necessary if your character isn't on planning on seeking employment or state benefits - which I assume is the case if she is going to come in to a big pile of money.
The issues you describe have existed with signatures from the beginning of their use. There exists a tradeoff between ease of use and reliability, both of forgery and of people falsely claiming forgery. Originally, the closest thing to a signature was the use of seals and signet rings. While relatively hard to forge, it only showed that the possessor of the object agreed. Signatures, especially in cursive font, were developed later. They were in some ways easier to forge(you didn't need to get access to a physical device), but more difficult in others(the seal symbols tended to be used on everything and various improvements in technology had been made), and harder to falsely claim forgery(because most people can't alter their handwriting well). You were affixing your name to the document, indicating that you agreed. Often, the signatures were required to backed up with the signatures of other people as witnesses. They didn't have to agree to the document, they just had to agree to testify that you signed of your own free will. Because witnesses, especially trustworthy and independent witnesses, are hard to come by, some places have dropped that requirement, such as checks and signing a aper receipt when using a credit card. But for some important documents, certain jurisdictions still require witnesses, including large transactions (a document relating to a car insurance payout I recently had required a witness to confirm my signature) and marriages. However, with electronic media, the point of a signature is more to indicate deliberate acceptance of terms, with verification of an individual being left to other processes (e.g. IP address, MAC address, linkage to a specific email account, etc.), so forgery is less of an issue. I have also seen "signatures" amount to checkboxes and "I agree" buttons. Generally, the higher the stakes and "more legal" the agreement, the more likely to these have been the "typed signatures" that you describe, but this seems to be decreasing in frequency, suggesting that its purpose was to stop gap a hole in legal acceptance by judges/courts/laws with regards to electronic communications. Addendum: It should also note that the replacement of seals by signatures is not universal; for instance in Japan, seals are still used over signatures in the majority of cases.
There seems, to my ear, to be a degree of similarity between the first two works. The third does not sound, to me, very similar to either of the first two. That is not a legal question, and I am no expert. However, all of these seem to be simple themes of only a few notes, repeated, in one case with some variations. The history of music is replete with examples of short themes or figures duplicated without intentional copying. Generally, to win a copyright suit over a claimed infringement of a musical copyright one must show either proven direct copying, or identity of melody over a long enough passage that independent invention is not plausible. Normally access of the alleged infringer to the claimed source is also shown. How much identity is needed is a judgement call for the court involved, often based on expert testimony, but I rather doubt if the short themes linked in the question would be found to infringe one another. In any case, even if identity is proved, it is possible that both are copying some earlier source, perhaps one in the public domain, or one properly licensed. It is also possible that one of thee has obtained a license from another and so is perfectly legal. There is no way to know without the records of those involved.
I think haveibeenpwned would be legal in the EU because it carries out a task in the public interest (Art. 6(1)(e)), and it shares no more data then necessary, for example you can search for a password, but it would not show you the emailaddress which belongs to that password. It would also be legal for you to hold a copy of a leaked database, but only if you have a legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f)) to have it. Being a security company does not change that, but finding a legitimate interest might be easier. If you have a legitimate interest to hold a copy of a leaked database, it does not mean you can use it in any way you like. For example testing if the password still works, is very likely illegal everywhere in the EU. But I'm not familiar with the UK laws.
18 USC §912 provides that: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. I do not think that in the context of a movie, play or game the person portraying an FBI agent or other LEO is "acting as such", and surely this does not involved obtaining "any money, paper, document, or thing of value". The Wikipedia article on Police_impersonation says: Dressing up as a police officer in costume (e.g. for Halloween), or pretending to be a police officer for the entertainment purposes or a harmless prank toward an acquaintance is generally not considered a crime, provided that those involved recognize the imposter is not a real police officer, and the imposter is not trying to deceive those involved into thinking they are. Nevertheless, replica police uniforms sold in the UK must not be identical to the uniforms currently used by the police, and traders have been jailed in the past for selling on genuine uniforms. Many films and TV shows have portrayed FBI agents, in some cases actual agents by their real names. This goes back as far as the 1935 moviw G-Men starring James Cagney. Many examples are listed in the Wikipedia article Federal Bureau of Investigation portrayal in media, and many of them used realistic badges and depictions. They were not treated as criminal impersonations, even when the FBI or its officials strongly disapproved of particular movies. The somewhat similar US federal law 10 USC 772 prohibits wearing military uniform by persons who are not authorized, but paragraph (f) provides that it is permitted: While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force. A Vietnam-War-era court case held the restriction "if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force" to be an unconstitutional restriction of speech, and held that unauthorized wearing of a uniform was only punishable if there was charged a proved an "intent to deceive". I would expect a similar limitation of 18 USC §912. That said, if the email was such that a reasonable person might well be deceived into believing that it really came for an actual FBI agent or other government employee, there might be a problem. The suggestions on that point in the answer by user hszmv seem reasonable to me. An imaginary "Confederal Department of Interrogation" say, keeps things firmly in an alternate reality.
It is not necessarily a crime to do this, but the gift to you and from you to Betty would be disregarded and treated as if gift directly from Alice to Betty, if the IRS knew all of the facts. A gift implies a donative intent directed at you. When there is an understanding that you are acting at Alice's direction, you aren't receiving a gift, you are acting as Alice's agent. This said, this scheme, or the alternative it seeks to prevent, has no impact on Betty, because gift taxes are imposed on the donor rather than the recipient of the gift. And, in most cases, a gift in excess of the $14,000 per person per year gift tax exemption will have only a minimal impact. This is because each person is entitled to make a combination of gifts in excess of the exemption during life and transfers to non-spouses and non-charities at death of $11,200,000 per lifetime (adjusted annually for inflation). Usually, all that is necessary if the limit is exceeded is for the donor to file form 706 (a federal gift tax return) at the same time as the donor's income tax return, and this form is very simple if the only gifts given are cash gifts. Transfers to a U.S. citizen spouse are gift and estate tax free, as are gifts to foreign and domestic charities. Spouses who file a Form 709 in a year may treat gifts given by one spouse as actually given half by each spouse. If someone dies not having used their entire $11,200,000 (adjusted for inflation) lifetime exemption, their surviving spouse, if any, inherits that unused portion and can use it at their death in addition to their own lifetime exemption. So, Alice and Betty are trying to evade a tax law that is easy and trouble free to comply with, and may provide future benefits by documenting the intent of the parties with respect to a large gift (so that someone doesn't later try to characterize it as a loan or contribution to a trust estate, for example). While it isn't a crime, it is ill advised and won't benefit them materially in the end.
I emailed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the USA asking this and received the reply: "There is nothing to prevent you from marketing antiques in the UK while present in the US." I also contacted a relevant US attorney and received: "There’s nothing in your question which would implicate Colorado or US law. If you're a UK citizen, and the sale is happening in the UK while you're in the US, then the US has anything to do with it. So as long as the UK doesn’t have any problem with it, the US will not." So I would conclude this question fairly answered.
Yes, as long as it is clear that this is fiction. It is utterly common for fiction set in the current world to mention real institutions and people, and have them do and say things that they never really did or said, to fit the plot or just to provide background. Busman's Honeymoon by Sayers included quotes from the (London) Times about Lord Peter Wimsey's wedding, an event which of course never occurred. Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novels frequently included imagined stories in the New York Times, as well as in the (fictional) New York Gazette. The Novel Advise and Consent by Allan Drury included many fictional stories by real papers (often the Washington Post) about its fictional events, as well as fictional acts and statements by many real political figures of the day. The list could be extended almost forever. As long as a reasonable reader would understand this to be fiction, there is no issue of defamation. Nor does any paper have a copyright on its name. As for trademarks, as long as you aren't trying to sell a fake paper under a real name, there is no legal issue. Go ahead, and I hope it is a great story.