TL;DR But doesn't that just mean the individual's original memories weren't strong enough to reject the false one? It seems to me that memory implantation should only work in cases where the individual thinks it's possible s/he would commit said crime (or have said experience, in general). If an individual's core personality rejects the very idea to the point of the suggestion being comical, I don't see how this could happen. Similarly, supporting active memories could anchor the reality of a "passive" one - e.g., I can't actively remember "having never been in a police station," but I do actively remember being curious every time I've seen a police station depicted if that's what they really look like - which, obviously, couldn't have happened if I knew what a police station looked like (further argument below). Case study (of myself) follows.

Conclusion: 70% of people have no strong reason to believe they wouldn't commit theft, assault, or assault with a weapon - that's just scary.

It just strikes me that the scope of possible memories to be implanted would very strongly depend on the individual in question. Specifically, the study mentions "theft, assault, or assault with a weapon." I just can't figure how that could possibly work on me. Case study time!

The only theft to which I've been party was absentmindedly walking out of a convenience store with a soda and candy bar - and it upset me to the point of demanding that I be taken back to pay. That happened before the "early adolescence" time period used by this study, so they couldn't have even suggested that reaction was a result of guilt or anxiety from a prior transgression; nor could they argue that it was a gateway (that I took candy once and saw I didn't get in trouble, so...). So now they not only have to implant a memory, but erase another - as well as all of its supporting recollections!

It's even more ridiculous that I would have been party to assault. First of all, there would be zero chance to convince me that a gun was involved, as I take it as a point of pride that I've never so much as touched one (to be fair, I don't have the same bedrock grounds to reject another weapon). If they so much as made the suggestion, I would know immediately and unquestionably that they're lying through their teeth. Similarly, I know full well that I've never been in a fight. For both of these, it's not just that I have no memories of doing so, it's that I have dozens of memories of discussing those facts - many times, in many contexts, with many people, and many accompanied by various supporting data all grounded in other aspects of my life or personality. (E.g., my response throughout childhood and early adolescence to "what wold you do if someone wanted to fight?" was "I'd climb a tree." Good luck removing all memories of why I thought I'd be able to climbing a tree as an effective fight-avoidance technique.)

I've also never been in a police station, which the article's planted memory implies would be true ("that led to police contact" for "theft, assault, or assault with a weapon"). Sure, I have no "active" memory of not being somewhere...but I do have active memories of being curious about what a police station really looks like. From Ferris Bueller's Day Off to Law and Order to West Wing (the episode with the profiled judge nominee) to The Usual Suspects to The Legend of Korra - nearly every time I see a fictional police station, I wonder if that's what they really looks like, because I don't know, because I've never been in one. So anyone who wants to convince me I have would also need to convince me that the encounter was so trivial I forgot something so basic as that I've seen the inside of a police station, or else that the curiosity I felt (Airplane, Batman cartoons, ...) is feigned. It wouldn't even be enough to convince me that I wasn't paying attention to the police station, because simply knowing I had ever been in one would have changed the tone of my curiosity to one of focused consideration: "I wonder if that police station I was in actually did look like this?"

The key point is that the very idea that I would have been involved with these sorts of crimes isn't just unlikely, it's laughable. I'd sooner believe that I have multiple personalities and blackouts than I would believe I committed these crimes - and I have plenty of logical evidence that I don't have multiple personalities or blackouts (unless my proposed psychological issues are so systemic that this experience isn't really happening, either).

Now, I'm sure there are things about which I could be convinced. youknowitbythis's example of a hot air balloon ride, maybe. I'd agree that it's possible, at least. Crimewise, something about RIAA threats perhaps, or that I was involved in an accident (for which I suffered no significant consequence) that resulted in another's significant injury. The first would gain traction because my university did make a big deal about downloading rules (though I was never directly involved), and the second because it's just impossible to know if a chance interaction caused unseen medical complications later on (I could have kicked another kid while swimming or bumped heads while turning a corner). The key point being that these are plausible, based on my existing experiences. They could fall into the category of "believing but not remembering," provided the consequences were held low enough (and avoided contradicting specific memories, like interactions with police) that I reasonably could have forgotten.

I use my own experiences merely as an example - surely others have similar fundamental traits, core personality aspects, and systemic memories that would make the very idea of having been involved with these crimes a joke. While it makes perfect sense that one can suggest false memories, it doesn't make sense that one can rewrite an entire personality, built from so many interconnected, correlated events - which can make the idea of having committed certain crimes so ridiculous as to undermine the entire exercise.

So what's my conclusion? 70% of the population believes that they are (were?) capable of theft, assault, or assault with a weapon, and they have no strong memories or core personality traits that provide a logical basis for refuting the story. That's just scary.