Particularly in light of what happened to George Floyd, which is probably his intended subtext.
But on a disappointing note, was what he did actually technically illegal? He didn’t pay for goods and services with the money, he probably didn’t tell his victims that it was real money, he simply handed it to a person on the street, and let them draw their own conclusions. So he may not be guilty of misrepresenting the money as real. I don’t know if there is a law against fooling someone in the hopes that they commit an illegal act, (there probably should be) but I doubt that counterfeiting law covers what he did.
Counterfeiting money or other securities is typically charged as a federal crime, meaning offenders are subject to prosecution under federal law. The United States Code makes forgery and counterfeiting currency serious criminal offenses. Under federal law, for example, the maximum punishment for those found guilty of altering, creating, knowingly passing or otherwise participating in counterfeiting 20 years in federal prison.
I don’t think it’s the spending part, I think it’s knowing that it’s fake but treating it as real. So if you give your friend a real-looking fake bill and tell them it’s fake money, you’re probably in the clear. Making a real-looking fake bill, putting it in a birthday card and hoping they get caught trying to spend it, illegal.
Whoever, within the United States, knowingly and with intent to defraud, utters, passes, or puts off, in payment or negotiation, any false, forged…
They do list “in payment” which would cover your scenario, but also utters, passes or puts off which would, I think, all be in reference to distributing the fake money in ways other than spending it.
I think it’s simply a matter of intentionally putting counterfeit bills into circulation. It’s not just a matter of ripping people off - the very existence of counterfeit bills debases the currency and reduces faith in the government. The damage they do goes far beyond some individuals losing money.
I have no credential to offer except my well-deserved reputation as a prescriptivist, but in my lexicon, transmitting a counterfeit bill with the goal of completing a monetary transaction is tendering; all that is necessary for it to be passing is for the currency to pass from one holder to another.
I don’t Xit, myself, but if I did, my response would be something along the lines of the average Republican politician makes up twelve bogus statistics per hour,
‘Cos if I’ve got 240 characters, I’m not gonna waste my time on “Cite?”
And then I’d end with #It_Is_A_Sin_To_Vote_For_A_Republican
For the record he is quoting the title of this book
Its a common go to reference for those complaining about regulations. I haven’t read it so I can’t comment on whether its any good, but its got a forward by Alan Dershowitz so probably not.
I’m with you. The intent, obviously and according to the words of the passer (A), is for the recipient (B) to believe the offered bill is legitimate and that B then passes it to someone else (C) who recognizes it for the counterfeit is and calls the cops to arrest B.
You don’t even have to get nitpicky/prescriptivist about it. The law specifically mentions both knowingly using counterfeit money to buy things as well as just handing it off to someone or otherwise getting it into circulation.
Whoever, within the United States, knowingly and with intent to defraud, utters, passes, or puts off, in payment or negotiation, any false, forged…
I didn’t look beyond this, but I assume there’s another part of the law that covers (knowingly) possessing it as well. At least possessing it in a way to suggest you plan to use it (ie in your wallet).
Yep. I’d say “passing in negotiation” would cover what he’s done. He’s getting the homeless people to leave him alone by giving them a fake $5 bill. That seems like a sufficient quid-pro-quo to count as “negotiating”, and it’s clearly “passing” if it changes hands.
