Found this on cointalk http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=29998 They link to a very interesting read with a theory about the supernotes. http://www.coinlink.com/News/banknotes/north-korea-and-the-supernote-enigma/ I'll let you guys read the article and draw your own conclusions.
What I basically got from that article is although North Korea is heavily suspected of producing counterfeit US currency, nothing in the way of solid, direct proof has ever been found, at least not yet. (Particularly striking and amusing is the defector who claimed to have witnessed counterfeiting operations, but couldn't even name who was depicted on the front of the $100 bill or what building was on the back. It seems a lot of defectors' testimony is hearsay, rumors, or just telling people what they think they want to hear.) It also seems fairly unlikely that they are even capable of producing the "supernotes" (extremely high quality counterfeits). I'm open to the idea that they probably attempt to counterfeit US currency but it seems doubtful to me that they could possibly posess the necessary technology, equipment, and expertise to produce counterfeits of high enough quality to pass as real under close examination. Rest of the article drones on about how the US pressures banks around the world to cut off ties to North Korea to make the economic sanctions more effective. It's a matter of political opinion whether or not they should, but it's factually apparent they do an excellent job of it. Of course barricading the front door just forces them to do all their trade out the back door... greatly cuts down on the volume of open trade they can do but they're probably not capable of a high volume anyway. Most I can comment on without drifting into political discourse I suppose. Interesting read though.
Interesting article. Keep in mind this author is writing with a very definite slant. Thanks for posting.
Interesting since north korea doesn't even have the appropriate facilities to make their own currency, its printed in China. There is also a lot of speculation about the CIA printing these notes themselves. http://www.watchingamerica.com/frankfurterallgemeine000009.shtml
Excellent point; one of the big reasons the theory of North Korea being behind the supernotes doesn't hold much water. Lol... well there's speculation that the CIA is doing all kinds of things... (creating AIDS, causing earthquakes, etc.) people love coming up with various theories about what the CIA is up to... some may actually be true; even a broken clock manages to be right twice a day... but most are just screwball theories with no real (or imaginary for that matter) evidence to back them up. As for this particular theory, what would be the motivation? Distributing high quality counterfeits couldn't possibly benefit the CIA, a US government agency, in any way... if they need US currency for any reason it would probably be easier for them to get the real thing anyway. There were theories at a time that the CIA was counterfeiting Iraqi dinars in order to destabilize their economy (like it needed any help!), but never really proven... it was known that the CIA likely produced propaganda leaflets that on one side looked like Iraqi money, but it wasn't intended to pass as real as the back side was used for various propaganda messages.
A little info on why North Korea can't be behind the Supernotes "North Korea purchased an intaglio press from the Swiss firm Giori in the mid-1970s.3 This fact is regarded as an indication that the nation has the technology available to print supernotes. Yet there have been significant advances in the field since the time of its purchase. Because certain auxiliary equipment is lacking, the model owned by the DPRK is considered by experts to be incapable of achieving the level of quality seen on supernotes. Not long after purchasing the Giori, North Korea defaulted on its loan after having made just two payments. For that reason, as well as due to U.S. pressure, Giori ceased shipping spare parts to North Korea many years ago, and according to one expert the North Korean printing press now stands idle.4 One striking feature of supernotes is the composition of the paper. Throughout the world, currency is printed on cotton-based paper. But U.S. currency is different, being composed of a mix of 75 percent cotton pulp and 25 percent linen. Supernote counterfeits rely on the same unique combination. To produce secure paper like that used in U.S. currency requires advanced technology and the cost far surpasses that of manufacturing regular paper. The price of even a small plant can exceed $100 million. To remain profitable, a paper plant would have to produce more than four thousand metric tons of such banknote paper a year. But the quantity of supernotes seen in circulation so far has required only a tiny fraction of that total. It would seem, then, that the only option for North Korea would be to procure its paper from an existing plant outside of its borders. This would be no easy matter. The paper used in U.S. currency is produced on a Fourdrinier machine at a plant located in the state of Georgia. This machine uses longer pulp fibers than the short pulp fibers used by the rest of the world relying on cylinder mold methods.5 Remarkably, supernote paper even incorporates colored microfibers, a thin security thread marked "USA 100" in microprint, and a multi-tone watermark. These features can only be produced through the use of sophisticated technology at substantial cost. One expert who conducted a chemical and physical analysis of supernotes discovered that the cotton originated in the southern region of the U.S. — precisely where the Bureau of Engraving and Printing gets its cotton. Southern U.S. cotton is available on the world market, but this would make it traceable to some extent. The expert conducting the analysis is said to have been warned by "interested parties" not to make the results public. The implication was that these parties worked for the U.S. government.3 One of the special features of U.S. currency is the use of optically variable ink (OVI) manufactured by the Swiss firm Société Industrielle et Commerciale de Produits Amon (SICPA). This organization is the sole source for OVI. On the U.S. $100 bill, this color shifting ink is employed on the number in the lower right hand corner. Turning the bill one way, the number appears bronze green. Turned another, it appears black. Supernotes duplicate the same color shift.8 This particular color combination is reserved for the exclusive use of the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing and is manufactured at only one location in the world. A joint venture was established between SICPA and the California-based OCLI laboratory to manufacture this combination of OVI ink. Bronze-green and black OVI is mixed at the SICPA plant in Virginia, which serves only the U.S. market. The rest of the world gets its supply of OVI from SICPA's main plant in Switzerland.9 North Korea was at one time a client of SICPA. Each nation is assigned a unique color combination. The DPRK's combination was green and magenta, which Treasury official Daniel Glazer asserts can be manipulated to appear similar to the U.S. combination.10 Yet a forensic laboratory has found that the security ink used in supernotes is not similar. It matches U.S. currency.11 Furthermore, it is probable that North Korea has long ago exhausted its limited supply of OVI. SICPA spokeswoman Sarah Van Horn points out, "We ceased all OVI deliveries in early 2001, and later that year all security ink supplies." Severing trade with North Korea came at the request of U.S. officials, long before the Bush Administration publicly accused North Korea of manufacturing and distributing supernotes.12 There is much that is odd about supernotes. Banknote specialist Klaus W. Bender points out that experts regard the print quality as "simply superb." In some ways, Bender continues, "the supernotes are even better than the authentic 100-dollar bills of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Under the microscope, for example, the supernote shows an especially fine execution of lines on the facing side, which cannot be found on the real note. The complicated seal of the Department of the Treasury on the facing side is copied with absolute perfection, but just below it, one finds in the banknote numbering a marking compound that should not be there. And then, missing from this excellently copied supernote, of all things, are the magnetic and infrared security features that would prevent banknote examining systems from bouncing it. Every surveillance device of an American bank or the Fed recognizes the supernote immediately as a counterfeit and spits it out. Do the counterfeiters perhaps intend that the supernote be recognized immediately in the United States?"45 A report issued by the Swiss police concurs that the makers of the supernote seem to have deliberately introduced subtle errors into the process. Extra strokes have been added. When placed under ultraviolet or infrared light, stripes can be seen or numbers vanish on supernotes.46 The most perplexing aspect of supernote production is their low quantity. By 2006, the Secret Service had seized $50 million in supernotes, an average of just $2.8 million per year since the first one was discovered. And since supernotes are usually detected the moment they enter the international banking system, the total quantity produced is probably not significantly higher. Supernotes make up a small percentage of the total counterfeit dollars in circulation. "To provide a point of reference," said Michael Merritt of the U.S. Secret Service, "during fiscal year 2005, the Secret Service seized over $113 million in counterfeit U.S. currency." Not only is the amount of supernotes small relative to less sophisticated counterfeits, but it is insignificant compared to the $760 billion in genuine U.S. currency in circulation.47 The Swiss police observe, "What defies logic is the limited, or even controlled, amount of 'exclusive' fakes that have appeared over the years. The organization could easily circulate tenfold that amount without raising suspicions." Yet a printing press "like the one in North Korea can produce $50 million worth of bills in a few hours."48 During the 1970s, Giori replaced its standard model printers in a phased approach with its new "Super" series. The standard model was capable of printing three thousand sheets per hour. Each sheet held 32 notes. If North Korea purchased one of the older standard models, it would have taken just over five hours to produce $50 million. And $2.8 million a year would have required running the press for less than half an hour. Production would be done for the year. The newer Orlof press can spew out 12,000 sheets per hour, each sheet containing sixty notes. Only two and a half minutes would be needed to generate $2.8 million in notes.49 Clearly, supernotes are being produced for a very specific purpose." Link to the full article http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8919 None of it makes sense, who would spend all that money for the equipment and then not print any substantial quantities. Unfortunately it would make sense for the US or CIA to do this. You can fund operations without Congress approving the money. And it allows us to point the finger at whoever we have a gripe with at the moment.
The only thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the assumption that no one else is capable of making a dry intaglio printing press. It doesn't even have to be dry, but dry is what makes the ink stick out so well. Intaglio printing has been used for well over a hundred years. One does not have to print 32 notes at a time. 4 notes at a time with a manual screw press would produce a passable note. I would imagine that error notes are a good way to help develop the printing plates quicker. Find your self a note with a missing overprint and another with a missing second printing, and you are that much closer to using photography and chemical etching to making a printing plate. Same with a missing first printing to get the reverse nailed down. Remember, the background colors are printed using offset printing. Now, if the inks have a chemical marker in them, there would be little to no value in attempting to duplicate that, and therefore, if the markers are present, I would definitely re-evaluate the supply chain of the ink to find out how someone is managing to secure the original. If someone was tapping into the some sort of official supply for the marked ink, I would hope they are smart enough to "mix" as much of various inks obtained so as to obfuscate the source as much as possible. Remember, for years, college kids have been investigating various naturally occuring substances and figuring out how to make them synthetically. I don't see why the same couldn't be done with the ink used for printing. I would think that the one marker that would help to deter that technique would be to add some element or molecule that was outrageously expensive to make or obtain (like trace amounts of Rhodium or something like that).
Flaw in that reasoning is that the costs involved in producing counterfeits of that quality would exceed the nominal value of the notes produced done on as small of a scale as this. If the CIA or some other organization wished to use this to conceal the source of money, how would they account for the cost of the needed equipment? It would make no sense to spend $2 to conceal the source of $1. No funding is truly secret from the US either... every dollar has to be accounted for, somewhere. Classified operations require a high enough security clearance to be allowed to see the specific funding for them... but somebody, somewhere, knows about it. Not even the CIA is exempt from congressional oversight. A congressman from the correct committee could receive a classified briefing if they were so motivated. I suppose it's possible that some congressmen know and choose not to say anything out of respect for national security. However logic dictates if they are those willing to fund certain operations secretly, why not just fund them directly and not bother to go through the effort to produce counterfeit currency, at a higher cost than the face value of the counterfeits, that can be detected as counterfeits with modern bank equipment? The cost of the equipment needed to do so is no easier to conceal than the money itself anyway... I just can't see it as making any sense whatsoever. There's a reason I have trouble believing in large-scale conspiracies. In order to work and remain secret, a rediculously huge number of people would have to be in on it and manage to conceal their actions and keep them secret. It defies all common sense that the CIA, or any other American organization, could run an operation of this scale without someone finding out about it. The previous president couldn't even have oral sex with an intern in the privacy of his own office without it being on the front page of every newspaper in the world within the month. What do you think the realistic chance is the CIA, or any other AMerican orgainzation, could keep this secret? The fact that people are even publically speculating about the possibility, already questions the CIA's involvement... if they can't do it openly, and they can't keep it a secret... all logic points to it not being worth it for them to bother.
Troodon, don't forget that this country likes to overstate the cost of doing/buying/making various stuff. The cost to DESIGN and build a working dry intaglio press is much different than the cost to build a duplicate dry intaglio press. All a small organization would need is a couple very good machinists and access to the very detailed and accurate plans for the dry intaglio press. At which point, the cost would be very low as you have no need for engineering, designers, engravers, etc.... All you need to do is smuggle detailed electronic drawings. Heck, many modern CNC's can machine parts directly from the electronic drawings eliminating the need for machinists (but I've yet to see such a feat work for complicated parts without the need for tweaking the CNC's scripts). As for the plates, again, all you need is access to the originals in the form of detailed electronic files or high quality photographs. We have people designing/building complete processors less than a ¼" in size. Take out the designing/engraving step and realize that you are talking macro compared to cpu's, and engraving a plate using similar technology is well within the grasp of any decent MIT grad student to make a plate. Heck, maybe the reason the supernotes are of a higher quality is because their plates are duplicates of the original masters and don't include any of the anomolies introduced by the BEP's semi-automated duplicating processes used to make the hundreds of plates needed to keep up with volume. Now, this doesn't have to be the CIA or any other covert government operation, but rather this could be any organization that has managed to either hack into or place a spy in the BEP and gain access to the electronic files. Could simply be the result of a corrupt official selling the files. Who knows. All I'm saying is, don't confuse the cost of duplicating an existing technology with the cost of reverse engineering it.
This is all fascinating, and worth a re-read when I have a chance. A couple thoughts - even the poorest or most backward country can produce a superior product in small quantities when the need or drive is there. For example, NK doesn't even have the resources to feed its people but it is a nuclear power. The low quantities of notes might be due to a small operation (a single plate, etc.). Or, they may be more common than people think - I often wonder how I would know if I had one.
They actually do exist or did exist and most of them headed towards China and Russia as far as I have heard. The real problem is that the design of the old US bills are just hilarious in terms of security - some of the Russian banknotes had better anti counterfeit measures. There was a time on a site that I read when a Chinese quoted a figure of 30-70USD for a 100USD bill note which I had suspicion. Like it or not, North Korea can be a box full of surprise when it comes to quality - yes they ARE capable of making decent quality stuff but with poor management skills, they are just not able to make a profit out of their operation.
