Kendall Counterfeit Currency Charges: What Lawyers Should Know

Counterfeiting currency is a serious federal crime that can result in severe penalties if convicted. In the Kendall area and across the United States, law enforcement aggressively pursues individuals involved in manufacturing and distributing fake currency. Defense attorneys play a critical role in protecting the rights of clients facing counterfeiting charges. This article provides an overview of key issues and defenses related to Kendall counterfeit currency cases.

Overview of Counterfeiting Laws

The primary federal law prohibiting counterfeiting is 18 U.S.C. § 471, which makes it illegal to falsely make, forge, or counterfeit any obligation or other security of the United States with the intent to defraud. This includes not only finished counterfeit bills but also possessing tools, images, or materials used in manufacturing fake currency. Penalties under this statute can include fines up to $5,000 and prison sentences up to 15 years.

In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 474 prohibits possessing counterfeit currency with intent to defraud, which includes passing or attempting to pass fake bills even if the defendant did not actually manufacture them. This offense carries up to 15 years imprisonment and fines up to $15,000. Other related laws prohibit possessing plates for printing counterfeit currency and dealing in counterfeit obligations of the U.S. or foreign governments.

Prosecutors often bring counterfeiting charges in federal court due to the nationwide impact of fake currency on the U.S. financial system. However, some states like Florida also have laws prohibiting counterfeiting that may apply if the activity occurs solely within state borders. The Secret Service has primary investigative jurisdiction over federal counterfeiting cases as part of its mission to safeguard U.S. currency.

Key Elements of Counterfeiting Offenses

To obtain a conviction under counterfeiting statutes, prosecutors must prove several key elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• Actus Reus – The prohibited conduct, such as manufacturing, possessing, or passing counterfeit currency. This may include finished fake bills as well as materials and tools used to make them.
• Mens Rea – The requisite mental state. Most counterfeiting laws require an “intent to defraud,” meaning knowledge that the currency is fake and intent to use it deceitfully.
• Counterfeit Status – The items must be recognizable imitations of genuine U.S. or foreign currency, securities, or other financial obligations, however imperfect.
• Jurisdiction – The activity must have a sufficient link to interstate or foreign commerce.

The prosecution carries the burden of proving each of these elements with concrete evidence like seized counterfeit bills, printing supplies, recorded conversations, or witness testimony. The defense can challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on any required element.

Entrapment Defense

One potential defense in Kendall counterfeiting cases is entrapment, arguing that the defendant only engaged in illegal activity due to improper inducement by government agents. This is an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise and prove.

As the Eighth Circuit explained in U.S. v. Irving, the entrapment defense will fail if the record shows the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime. But if the government persuasion or pressure was so outrageous or fundamentally unfair, the court may find entrapment as a matter of law. The Tenth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Kendall provides another example of how courts analyze an entrapment defense in counterfeiting cases.

Unlawful Government Conduct Defense

Beyond entrapment, defendants can also argue that the government’s investigation and sting operation was so improper that it violated due process rights. While this defense rarely succeeds, attorneys can file motions challenging the constitutionality of the government’s actions.

For example, in U.S. v. Irving, the defendant claimed the Secret Service’s extensive involvement in his counterfeiting activities was outrageous and fundamentally unfair. But the Eighth Circuit found the agents’ conduct did not bar prosecution, though it was substantial.

Bringing successful motions on government misconduct requires developing a robust record of the techniques, payments, pressure, or deception used by federal agents and informants. This can form the basis for arguing the government violated the Constitution.