CT · jury_instructions
Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 10.3-2
Trafficking in Personal Identifying Information
The defendant is charged [in count__] with trafficking in personal identifying information. The
statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of trafficking in personal identifying information when such person
sells, gives or otherwise transfers personal identifying information of another person
to a third person knowing that such information has been obtained without the
authorization of such other person and that such third person intends to use such
information for an unlawful purpose.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Sold/gave/transferred personal identifying information
The first element is that the defendant (sold / gave / transferred) personal identifying information
to another person. “Personal identifying information” means:
(A) Any information that can be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to
identify or trace a specific individual including, but not limited to such individual’s name,
prior legal name, alias, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, address,
telephone number, motor vehicle operator’s license number, Social Security number,
employee identification number, employer or taxpayer identification number, alien
registration number, government passport number, health insurance identification
number, demand deposit account number, savings account number, credit card number,
debit card number or unique biometric data such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris
image, or other unique physical representation;
(B) Any information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, financial,
educational, consumer, or employment information, data or records; or
(C) Any other sensitive private information that is linked or linkable to a specific identifiable
individual, such as gender identity, sexual orientation or any sexually intimate visual
depiction.
Element 2 - Not authorized
The second element is that the defendant knew that the information had been obtained without
the authorization of the person whose identifying information it was. A person acts “knowingly”
with respect to conduct or circumstances when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such
nature or that such circumstances exist. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>
Element 3 - For unlawful purpose
The third element is that the defendant knew that the third person intended to use the information
for an unlawful purpose. An unlawful purpose is anything that is prohibited by law. <Insert
specific allegations.>
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) (sold / gave /
transferred) personal identifying information to another person, 2) (he/she) knew that the
identifying information had been obtained without authorization, and 3) (he/she) knew that the
person to whom the information was transferred intended to use it for unlawful purposes.
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements
of the crime of trafficking in personal identifying information, then you shall find the defendant
guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
3a97096d0ede4475f9692044792f30e3ec1e9e8229e0512ad222d7a67e662b51
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.