It isn't blaming the victim. I think they meant something else but worded it that way. What they meant was 'redefining the victim'. The victim is the bank, who got defrauded. They then call it 'identity theft' instead of 'bank fraud'.
I think it is a reasonable inference given the context and the description and that it makes sense to think of it like 'victim blaming' because mixing common parlance with legal terminology often results in similar confusions (for instance breaking and entering is a legal term which does not have to involve breaking anything, and assault in common use means physical contact but legally it does not have to).
In any case if it meant literally 'blaming the victim' it makes no sense at all, so either we give the benefit of assuming the poster is able to make coherent statements or we don't.
