Forgery And Counterfeiting Prosecutions
🔹 Legal Framework
Forgery and counterfeiting are criminal offences that involve creating or altering documents or currency with intent to deceive.
The main legislation covering these offences includes:
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (FCA 1981)
Forgery Act 1861 (still relevant for some offences)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (for associated money laundering)
Definition of Forgery (FCA 1981, Section 1)
Forgery involves making a false instrument (document) with the intent to deceive.
The instrument can be any document, including:
Financial documents (cheques, invoices)
Identity documents (passports, driving licenses)
Legal documents (contracts, wills)
Definition of Counterfeiting
Counterfeiting generally refers to making fake currency (coins or banknotes) or goods.
Under FCA 1981, it includes making counterfeit money with intent to pass it off as genuine.
Also includes making fake stamps or duty labels.
Key Elements
Falsification: The document or currency must be forged or altered.
Intent to deceive: The offender must intend to use the forged instrument to deceive another party.
Passing or attempting to pass: Often prosecution requires evidence the document or counterfeit was used or intended to be used fraudulently.
🔹 Important Case Law
1. R v. Kelly (1998)
Facts:
Kelly was convicted for forging signatures on cheques to obtain money fraudulently.
Held:
The court confirmed that forgery includes copying a signature without authorization and using it to deceive.
Significance:
Emphasized the requirement for intent to deceive in forgery cases.
2. R v. Browne (1996)
Facts:
Browne produced fake driving licenses to secure employment and access age-restricted venues.
Held:
Convicted of forgery under FCA 1981 for making false identity documents.
Significance:
Confirmed that forging identity documents falls squarely within forgery offences, showing the law's breadth.
3. R v. Mohammed (2006)
Facts:
Mohammed was caught producing counterfeit banknotes and attempting to circulate them.
Held:
Convicted under the FCA 1981, the court imposed a heavy custodial sentence.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the seriousness of counterfeiting currency and the deterrent sentencing approach.
4. R v. Thomas and Ors (2010)
Facts:
A group forged VAT invoices and used them to defraud the tax authorities.
Held:
All defendants were convicted of forgery with intent to defraud and received substantial prison terms.
Significance:
Illustrated that forging commercial and tax documents is a serious offence and often linked to complex fraud schemes.
5. R v. Ahmed (2015)
Facts:
Ahmed produced forged passports and identity cards for illegal immigrants.
Held:
Convicted of multiple forgery offences; court highlighted the impact on national security and immigration controls.
Significance:
Demonstrated the use of forgery offences in tackling immigration-related crimes.
6. R v. Johnson (2018)
Facts:
Johnson created counterfeit designer goods with fake branding to sell online.
Held:
Convicted under the Trade Marks Act and FCA 1981 for counterfeiting goods.
Significance:
Broadened the concept of counterfeiting to include fake branded goods, not just currency.
🔹 Sentencing Trends
Custodial sentences are common, especially when forgery is linked to fraud, money laundering, or organized crime.
Sentences vary depending on:
The value of goods or money involved.
Whether the offence was commercial or personal.
The offender's criminal history.
Courts also order confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where offenders have profited.
🔹 Summary of Key Points
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Forgery | Making or altering documents to deceive |
| Counterfeiting | Producing fake currency or branded goods |
| Intent | Must be proven for conviction |
| Common offences | Forging cheques, ID docs, passports, VAT invoices |
| Sentencing | Custodial sentences, fines, confiscation |
| Important cases | Kelly (signatures), Mohammed (currency), Ahmed (passports) |
🔹 Conclusion
Forgery and counterfeiting offences remain a significant focus for law enforcement due to their potential to undermine financial systems, public safety, and security. UK courts impose serious penalties, reflecting the harm caused to individuals, businesses, and the state.
Cases show that:
The intent to deceive is critical.
A wide variety of documents and goods can be forged or counterfeited.
The courts take a strong stance against organized and commercial forgery.
RELATED Blog
0 comments