1797 CC Trade Dollar

I won't this time... I promise!

Seriously though, when we have the likes of Kurt claiming there's a "whole new HPA" and so many buy it hook, line, and sinker without bothering to actually read and think for themselves, you're providing a valuable service even if some cannot respect what you have to say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There is no difference between a counterfeit and a fake coin.

 

I get what you are saying but there is. All counterfeits are fake but not all fakes are counterfeits. Im sure I will get a bunch of crap for that but I believe that to be true. I define a fake as a piece that is meant to deceive for numistmatic reasons. A counterfeit is a type of fake but meant to be spent at face value and circulate when real ones were being used in commerce. They have value and history, and I think they belong in numistmatics.

 

Your definition of counterfeit is too narrow. The Omega gold counterfeits were never intended to circulate, but they too are considered counterfeits.

 

I don't know whether we're just arguing semantics - about which nobody will ever agree - here, but it ought to be noted that there's a reason why intent to defraud is baked into the law.

 

I dont think its too narrow. Omega gold shouldnt be considered counterfeits. Henning nickels are counterfeits. If a fake is not intended for circulation then I dont think it should be considered counterfeit IMO

 

Only for uttering offenses, but not for production offenses. To hold otherwise would effectively repeal the counterfeiting statute as every counterfeiter would claim that he or she never intended to defraud anyone by producing counterfeits. The intent element is included in the uttering language to ensure that someone who is unaware of a circulating counterfeit's falsity is not punished. It is also a statutory codification of 19th century due process case law that read intent into older penal statutes for production and possession of counterfeits to avoid unconstitutional applications. The producer of the piece knows the falsity of the pieces so there are no due process issues, and the modern counterfeiting statute, 18 U.S.C. 485, distinguishes between production and then possession/uttering, adding an intent to defraud element only for the latter.

 

I believe we are arguing semantics. And I agree, that nobody will ever agree.

 

But your distinction breaks down. What if only a portion of the mintage circulate/were intended to circulate, but the others were not? The pieces are basically identical, so it would be absurd to say that only some of them were counterfeits and the other identical pieces are not. What if the entire mintage never was intended to circulate but it does? How is it distinguishable from counterfeits that do circulate? What if it was intended to circulate but it never does? More importantly, we do not always know the counterfeiter's intent and regardless of intent, the end result (the counterfeit/fake coin) is the same.

 

Lawyered

 

well, I agree with that

 

Ok so say somebody is out making their own coins. Then someone reports them for counterfeiting. The police show up and cant prove that any of his pieces have defrauded anyone He says making these coins is just a hobby, he claims he never wanted to defraud anyone. He has even given some of the pieces to family and friends as gifts. Everyone knows they are fakes. Can they prove criminal intent? Is there anything wrong with what he is doing?

I still think counterfeit/fake should be based on what the piece was made for. I know you say that is difficult in certain circumstances but we have coins that are 100 years old that we call counterfeit, not fake. How do we know these coins circulated?

 

As a matter of law he is absolutely doing something wrong, and making the pieces is sufficient for a conviction. The authorities need not prove intent to defraud in making the pieces, but they would for distributing them. Those are two separate transactions/crimes/counts in an indictment even though provided for by the same statute.

 

From a collecting point of view - I can understand making a distinction on counterfeits based on the intent/purpose of their creation. Those originally produced for the fraudulent purpose deriving value for use as ordinary money in commerce - those produced for the fraudulent purpose of deriving value as a collectable - those produced for the purpose of deriving value as a fantasy piece. From a legal point of view I say a fake is a fake is a fake.

 

Local police have no authority to enforce federal law so nothing would happen if they were the ones to show up.

Just remember any answers you get in this thread aren't actually legal answers and many of the posters have demonstrated clear agenda driven bias time and time again, but can be an interesting hypothetical nonetheless

 

Under the HPA if they aren't marked COPY they are still illegal and he has violated the law. There is no intent to defraud requirement in the HPA. So he make not be able to be convicted under the counterfeiting statutes, but he could still be charged and convicted under the HPA.

 

What if's make me sick. Because...What if we tailor a situation just to make a clearly hypothetical point?

Save the hypothetical nonsense for your book where Carl the counterfeiter makes a thousand fakes but only sells one!

 

My hypothetical is actually based on a slightly modified real life example although the pieces were sold for a profit above face value. Some of the pieces were distributed but at least a few were retained by the counterfeiter (who presumably experienced some sort of twisted thrill out of making his/her own coinage). At least one of his/her wares circulated. My hypothetical is not as far fetched as you assume it is.

 

slightly modified

 

Fake. Counterfeit.

Neither are genuine.