Counterfeit Banknote Prosecutions
1. United States v. Ulbricht (2015) — USA
Facts:
Ross Ulbricht, the operator of the Silk Road darknet marketplace, facilitated the sale of counterfeit banknotes among other illegal goods. Authorities seized digital evidence linking Ulbricht to transactions involving fake U.S. currency.
Court’s Findings:
The court found that Ulbricht knowingly allowed transactions involving counterfeit banknotes, violating 18 U.S.C. §471 (counterfeiting) and §472 (possession of counterfeit obligations).
Judgment:
Ulbricht was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. His involvement in facilitating counterfeit transactions was treated as equivalent to direct production or circulation.
Significance:
This case emphasized that digital platforms enabling counterfeit currency sales are equally liable as the individuals directly producing or using counterfeit notes.
2. R v. Browne (2002) — United Kingdom
Facts:
Browne was caught passing counterfeit £20 and £50 notes at various shops. Police investigations revealed he obtained the notes from a supplier overseas.
Court’s Findings:
Under Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, it is an offence to make, possess, or circulate counterfeit currency. The court noted Browne’s repeated attempts indicated organized criminal behavior.
Judgment:
Browne was sentenced to 5 years in prison. His supplier was also prosecuted separately, receiving 7 years. All counterfeit notes were seized and destroyed.
Significance:
This case highlights that both distributors and end-users of counterfeit currency are prosecutable and that repeated circulation increases sentencing severity.
3. People v. Patel (2011) — New York, USA
Facts:
Patel was arrested for distributing counterfeit $100 bills produced using high-quality printing equipment. The notes had passed basic security checks in local shops.
Court’s Findings:
The court applied New York Penal Law §170.10 (Forgery in the Second Degree) and federal statutes on counterfeiting. Evidence included possession of the printing press and raw materials for making the bills.
Judgment:
Patel received 8 years in federal prison. His operation was deemed highly organized, and the court emphasized the risk to public trust in currency.
Significance:
Possession of equipment for counterfeiting constitutes direct evidence of intent, and severity of punishment correlates with scale and quality of notes produced.
4. R v. Singh (2016) — United Kingdom
Facts:
Singh was caught with counterfeit £10 and £20 notes hidden in a shipment of goods from overseas. He intended to circulate them in local markets.
Court’s Findings:
The prosecution relied on forensic examination proving the notes were fake and tracing them to Singh’s possession. Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 made both possession and intent to circulate illegal.
Judgment:
Singh was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. The court stressed that importing counterfeit notes is treated as seriously as domestic production.
Significance:
This case reinforces that cross-border counterfeit operations attract stringent legal consequences.
5. United States v. Yuen (2017) — California, USA
Facts:
Yuen produced high-quality counterfeit $20 and $50 bills using professional-grade printing technology. He attempted to pass them in multiple states.
Court’s Findings:
The court considered the sophistication of the operation, interstate activity, and intent to defraud under 18 U.S.C. §471 and §473 (trafficking counterfeit obligations).
Judgment:
Yuen received 10 years in prison and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. Law enforcement noted that high-quality fake currency causes more economic disruption and thus receives harsher sentences.
Significance:
The case highlights that quality, scale, and interstate circulation of counterfeit currency elevate prosecution severity.
6. R v. Adeyemi (2019) — United Kingdom
Facts:
Adeyemi was arrested for operating a small-scale counterfeiting ring producing £5 and £10 notes with home printing technology. The notes circulated in local convenience stores.
Court’s Findings:
The court applied Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. Despite the small scale, the court considered intent to circulate and repeated offences.
Judgment:
Adeyemi received 2 years in prison. The case emphasized that even small-scale counterfeit operations are criminally liable.
Significance:
This shows that scale does not exempt offenders from serious prosecution, and intent to circulate is sufficient for conviction.
7. United States v. Okeke (2020) — Illinois, USA
Facts:
Okeke imported counterfeit $10 bills from overseas and distributed them through local businesses. He also attempted online sales.
Court’s Findings:
Under federal counterfeiting statutes, Okeke’s act of importing and distributing counterfeit banknotes was sufficient for prosecution. Evidence included shipping records, banknote analysis, and surveillance.
Judgment:
Okeke received 6 years imprisonment and forfeiture of equipment and seized cash.
Significance:
The case confirms that importation, possession, and distribution of counterfeit currency, even in small amounts, can trigger federal prosecution.
Conclusion
From these cases, key legal principles emerge:
Possession, production, or circulation of counterfeit notes is strictly illegal.
Intent to circulate, not just possession, is critical for prosecution.
Use of modern printing technology or digital platforms increases culpability.
Cross-border operations attract harsher sentences.
Even small-scale counterfeiters face serious legal consequences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments