Counterfeits: Coins versus Currency

lkrarecoins

I was thinking this on the bus this AM:

Why is it illegal to possess counterfeit currency, when counterfeit coins are traded on EBAY, and elsewhere regularly?

Are coins too irrelevant or immaterial for the goverment to properly enforce? Or is it a metal versus paper value debate?

flaminio

It's more a matter of manpower available, and allocation of resources. Selling counterfeit coins on eBay is illegal, but there are bigger fish to fry...

Barndog

Why is it illegal to possess counterfeit currency, when counterfeit coins are traded on EBAY, and elsewhere regularly?

I'm quite sure counterfeit coins are against the law too. And don't be so sure that counterfeit currency isn't sold on ebay.


Are coins too irrelevant or immaterial for the goverment to properly enforce? Or is it a metal versus paper value debate?
I think you have hit upon the key there: value. Someone who makes/uses counterfeit currency is more likely to cause greater harm to others and to the economy (if large enough in scale)

Dentuck

The federal government feels a more compelling obligation and responsibility to protect the nation's circulating currency supply than to protect the collectibles market.

"Currency," of course, covers both paper money and metallic money.

If the feds discovered someone was counterfeiting Nevada state quarters or Roosevelt dimes in massive, dangerous-to-the-economy quantities, they would react more seriously than they do to fake 1870s trade dollars.

EricSan

I don't know the answer to your question, but wonder if it is tied to the age of the coins. Since the counterfeit coins are generally no longer circulating coins, there will be no confusing them with their genuine counterpoints when they are used to pay for every day business transaction (in cases where the coin is used to purchase something, not when the coin itself is being purchase).

Thus, the counterfeit does not interfere with normal transactions engaged in by the public at large, it only causes problems for us (the small coin-collecting portion of the population which should be better educated about such issues).

Just my guess.
Eric

lkrarecoins

very interesting, thanks everyone.....Have there ever been confirmations regarding modern fakes? Just curious.....Not sure if anyone would waste their time, unless they considered it just a challenge

Frankcoins

Some anal types on the rec.collecting.coins newsgroup think arresting collectors for
possessing a contemporary counterfeit capped bust half dollar is more important than
stopping North Korea from printing trillions of dollars of near perfect $100 bills.

SilverEagles92

Counterfeit coins are made to defraud collectors. Just like forged autographs on baseballs, etc. They are collectibles, and are not necessarily made to be spent.

nickel

It is illegal to print counterfiet currency , and illegal to spend it. But if I find a counterfeit note in circulation (if I can even tell , since most bank tellers cant) is it illegal to keep it as a souvenier?

Conder101

<< <i>Have there ever been confirmations regarding modern fakes? Just curious.....Not sure if anyone would waste their time, unless they considered it just a challenge >>


Yes they exist. I had a friend who had a lead 1974-D nickel. I have a white metal 1989 quarter. Back in early 1999 there was a couple traveling up the east coast paying their way with rolls of quarters, 1999 quarters, 1999 quarters with an eagle on the back!



<< <i>But if I find a counterfeit note in circulation (if I can even tell , since most bank tellers cant) is it illegal to keep it as a souvenier? >>


US Code Title 18 Sec 472

Whosoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

The statute is a little confusing since it contains both active and passive behaviors with the "with intend to defraud" clause. After all how could you keep or conceal something you own WITH intent to defraud? Other than to claim you don't have it in/didn't receive it an attempt at insurance fraud. I suspect they intended the first active clauses to be covered under the "intent to defraud" clause and the "inactive" clauses to stand on their own.