of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Counterfeiting of currency is a serious offense in Minnesota, targeting acts related to the fraudulent creation, distribution, or possession of fake United States currency, postal money orders, or other federal obligations. This crime undermines the integrity of the nation’s financial system and can cause significant losses to individuals and businesses who unknowingly accept counterfeit money. Minnesota law strictly prohibits various activities associated with counterfeiting, from the initial manufacturing or alteration of currency to possessing the tools needed for reproduction, and finally, to the act of passing or attempting to pass fake money into circulation. The core of the offense lies in the intent to defraud – the deliberate plan to deceive others by using illegitimate currency as if it were genuine.
Understanding the specific actions outlawed by Minnesota Statutes § 609.632 is crucial for anyone facing such allegations. The law addresses not only those who print fake bills but also those who possess sophisticated equipment like printers, scanners, or special inks with the purpose of creating counterfeit items. Furthermore, knowingly using or even just possessing counterfeit currency with the intent to use it constitutes a separate but equally serious offense. Given the potential for severe felony penalties, including lengthy imprisonment and substantial fines, accusations of counterfeiting demand careful legal consideration and a thorough examination of the state’s evidence and the available defenses.
Minnesota specifically criminalizes various aspects of currency counterfeiting under Minnesota Statutes § 609.632. This statute details the prohibited acts, including manufacturing, possessing counterfeiting tools, and uttering (passing) or possessing counterfeit currency. It defines the scope of items covered – primarily U.S. currency, postal money orders, and federal securities – and establishes the penalties based on the specific subdivision violated and, in cases of uttering/possessing, the value involved.
The statute reads as follows:
609.632 COUNTERFEITING OF CURRENCY.
Subdivision 1. Manufacturing; printing.
Whoever, with the intent to defraud, falsely makes, alters, prints, scans, images, or copies any United States postal money order, United States currency, Federal Reserve note, or other obligation or security of the United States so that it purports to be genuine or has different terms or provisions than that of the United States Postal Service or United States Treasury is guilty of counterfeiting and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4.
Subd. 2. Means for false reproduction.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, engraves, possesses, or transfers a plate or instrument, computer, printer, camera, software, paper, cloth, fabric, ink, or other material for the false reproduction of any United States postal money order, United States currency, Federal Reserve note, or other obligation or security of the United States is guilty of counterfeiting and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4.
Subd. 3. Uttering or possessing.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, utters or possesses with intent to utter any counterfeit United States postal money order, United States currency, Federal Reserve note, or other obligation or security of the United States, having reason to know that the money order, currency, note, or obligation or security is forged, counterfeited, falsely made, altered, or printed, is guilty of offering counterfeited currency and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4.
Subd. 4. Penalty.
(a) A person who is convicted of violating subdivision 1 or 2 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $100,000, or both.
(b) A person who is convicted of violating subdivision 3 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $100,000, or both, if the counterfeited item is used to obtain or in an attempt to obtain property or services having a value of more than $35,000, or the aggregate face value of the counterfeited item is more than $35,000;
(2) to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if the counterfeited item is used to obtain or in an attempt to obtain property or services having a value of more than $5,000, or the aggregate face value of the counterfeited item is more than $5,000;
(3) to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if:
(i) the counterfeited item is used to obtain or in an attempt to obtain property or services having a value of more than $1,000 or the aggregate face value of the counterfeited item is more than $1,000; or
(ii) the counterfeited item is used to obtain or in an attempt to obtain property or services having a value of no more than $1,000, or the aggregate face value of the counterfeited item is no more than $1,000, and the person has been convicted within the preceding five years for an offense under this section, section 609.24; 609.245; 609.247; 609.52; 609.53; 609.582, subdivision 1, 2, or 3; 609.625; 609.63; or 609.821, or a statute from another state or the United States in conformity with any of those sections, and the person received a felony or gross misdemeanor sentence for the offense, or a sentence that was stayed under section 609.135 if the offense to which a plea was entered would allow the imposition of a felony or gross misdemeanor sentence; or
(4) to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, if the counterfeited item is used to obtain or in an attempt to obtain property or services having a value of no more than $1,000, or the aggregate face value of the counterfeited item is no more than $1,000.
Subd. 5. Aggregation; venue.
In any prosecution under this section, the value of the counterfeited United States postal money orders, United States currency, Federal Reserve notes, or other obligations or securities of the United States, offered by the defendant in violation of this section within any six-month period may be aggregated and the defendant charged accordingly in applying the provisions of this section. When two or more offenses are committed by the same person in two or more counties, the accused may be prosecuted in any county in which one of the counterfeited items was forged, offered, or possessed, for all of the offenses aggregated under this subdivision.
To secure a conviction for any form of currency counterfeiting under Minnesota Statutes § 609.632, the prosecution must prove specific factual and mental elements beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements vary depending on whether the charge involves manufacturing counterfeit currency (Subdivision 1), possessing counterfeiting tools (Subdivision 2), or uttering/possessing counterfeit currency (Subdivision 3). A common thread across all subdivisions is the requirement of “intent to defraud,” meaning the accused must have acted with a deliberate purpose to deceive others. Failure by the prosecution to establish even one necessary element for the specific charge means the defendant cannot be lawfully convicted of that offense.
Below are the key elements the state must prove for each type of counterfeiting offense under this statute:
Conviction for counterfeiting currency under Minnesota Statutes § 609.632 carries severe penalties, reflecting the seriousness with which the state views interference with the nation’s financial instruments. The specific penalties depend on which subdivision of the statute was violated. Manufacturing counterfeit currency (Subd. 1) or possessing the means for false reproduction (Subd. 2) are considered particularly serious, carrying a high maximum penalty regardless of the amount counterfeited. Penalties for uttering or possessing counterfeit currency (Subd. 3) are tiered based on the value involved and potential prior convictions.
Counterfeiting currency, at its core, involves creating or using fake money or government securities with the intent to fool others into accepting them as real. Minnesota law addresses this from multiple angles – punishing not just the person who spends the fake $20 bill at a store, but also the individual who operates the printer to make those fake bills, and even someone who possesses the special paper and ink needed with the plan to start printing. It covers U.S. dollars, Federal Reserve notes (which are standard U.S. paper currency), U.S. postal money orders, and other government obligations. The key is the combination of falsity (it’s not genuine) and deception (the intent to pass it off as real).
The crime can range from sophisticated operations using advanced printing technology to simpler methods like altering genuine bills (e.g., changing a $5 bill to look like a $50 bill) or simply passing along a counterfeit bill received from someone else, provided the person passing it has reason to know it’s fake and intends to defraud the recipient. The law recognizes the different roles people might play in the counterfeiting process and assigns severe penalties, especially for manufacturing or possessing the tools, while penalties for passing fake currency often depend on the amount involved.
John uses a high-quality color printer, scanner, and specialized paper purchased online to print sheets of $100 bills in his basement. He carefully cuts the bills and attempts to make them look and feel authentic. His goal is to create enough fake currency to pay off personal debts. John’s actions fall under § 609.632, Subd. 1 (Manufacturing; printing) because he is falsely making United States currency with intent to defraud. He could also be charged under Subd. 2 for possessing the printer, scanner, and paper for the purpose of false reproduction. Both are felonies carrying up to 20 years imprisonment.
Lisa doesn’t print money herself, but she acquires engraving plates designed to replicate the markings on U.S. currency. She stores these plates, along with special inks and linen paper, intending to sell them to someone she knows who plans to set up a counterfeiting operation. Lisa’s possession of these materials with the intent that they be used for false reproduction constitutes a violation of § 609.632, Subd. 2 (Means for false reproduction). Even though she didn’t print anything, possessing these specific tools with fraudulent intent makes her liable for the felony penalty of up to 20 years.
Mark receives what he suspects is a counterfeit $50 bill as change from an unknown person. Although the bill looks slightly off, he decides to try and use it to buy groceries, hoping the cashier won’t notice. When he presents the bill, the cashier identifies it as fake using a counterfeit detection pen and calls the police. Mark has committed uttering counterfeit currency under § 609.632, Subd. 3. He possessed the bill with intent to utter (pass) it, had reason to know it was counterfeit, and acted with intent to defraud the store. Since the face value ($50) is $1,000 or less, this would likely be charged as a gross misdemeanor, unless he has relevant prior convictions.
Sarah obtains several counterfeit U.S. Postal Money Orders, each with a face value of $500. She knows they are fake. Over a few weeks, she goes to different post offices and check-cashing businesses attempting to cash them, succeeding in cashing two ($1,000 total) before being caught trying to cash a third. Sarah has violated § 609.632, Subd. 3 by uttering counterfeit items. Because the aggregate face value of the items she attempted to pass exceeds $1,000 ($1,500 total attempted), she faces felony charges punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine under Subd. 4(b)(3)(i).
An accusation of counterfeiting currency in Minnesota is a grave matter, potentially leading to severe felony convictions, substantial prison time, hefty fines, and a criminal record that carries lifelong consequences. However, being charged does not equate to guilt. The prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving each specific element of the alleged counterfeiting offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Various legal defenses might be applicable depending on the unique facts of the situation, including challenging the critical element of intent, questioning the legality of how evidence was obtained, or demonstrating a lack of knowledge that the currency was fake.
Successfully defending against counterfeiting charges requires a meticulous examination of the prosecution’s evidence and a deep understanding of Minnesota’s specific counterfeiting statute, § 609.632, as well as relevant constitutional protections. Strategies often focus on undermining the state’s ability to prove fraudulent intent or, in cases involving uttering or possession, the defendant’s knowledge or reason to know the currency was counterfeit. An attorney with experience handling financial crime cases can identify the most viable defense pathways and build a case designed to protect the accused person’s rights and future.
Since “intent to defraud” is a required element for all counterfeiting offenses under § 609.632, demonstrating its absence is a primary defense. The accused’s actions, while perhaps involving counterfeit items or tools, may not have been undertaken with the purpose of deceiving or cheating anyone.
For charges under Subdivision 3 (uttering or possessing counterfeit currency), the prosecution must prove the defendant had “reason to know” the item was counterfeit. If the defendant genuinely did not know and had no reasonable basis to suspect the currency was fake, this element is not met.
Counterfeiting investigations often involve searches of homes, vehicles, or computers where evidence (counterfeit bills, printing equipment) might be found. If law enforcement obtained this evidence through an illegal search that violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence may be suppressed.
This defense challenges the overall strength of the prosecution’s case, arguing they simply haven’t presented enough credible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each required element.
No, Minnesota Statutes § 609.632 covers not only U.S. currency (Federal Reserve notes) but also U.S. postal money orders and other obligations or securities of the United States. Falsely making, possessing tools for, or passing any of these items can lead to charges.
Counterfeiting U.S. currency is also a federal crime investigated by agencies like the Secret Service. While Minnesota has its own state statute (§ 609.632), individuals involved in counterfeiting can potentially face charges in either state or federal court, or sometimes both, depending on the specifics and scope of the operation. Federal penalties can also be very severe.
Under § 609.632, Subd. 3, the standard is “having reason to know” it was counterfeit. This means the prosecution doesn’t necessarily need to prove you had absolute certainty, but rather that the circumstances were such that a reasonable person would have suspected it was fake.
Possessing even one counterfeit bill can lead to charges under Subd. 3 if you possess it with the intent to utter (pass) it as genuine and had reason to know it was fake. The intent element is crucial; simply having found a fake bill and keeping it as a curiosity without planning to spend it might not meet the threshold.
Yes. Under § 609.632, manufacturing (Subd. 1) or possessing tools (Subd. 2) carries a maximum penalty of 20 years/$100,000 regardless of amount. Penalties for passing/possessing (Subd. 3) are tiered based on the value involved ($1k, $5k, $35k thresholds) and prior convictions, ranging from a gross misdemeanor to a 20-year felony.
It means acting with the specific purpose of deceiving someone by using fake currency or securities to obtain goods, services, or other value unfairly. It distinguishes criminal counterfeiting from accidental possession or non-fraudulent copying (like making play money).
Possessing a printer alone is not illegal. However, under Subd. 2, possessing a printer, computer, scanner, software, or specific materials with the intent to use them for falsely reproducing U.S. currency or securities, and with intent to defraud, is a crime. The prosecution must prove the fraudulent intent connected to the equipment.
Subdivision 5 allows the prosecution to add up the value of all counterfeit items passed or possessed by the defendant within a six-month period. This total aggregated value is then used to determine the penalty level under Subdivision 3, potentially elevating charges from a gross misdemeanor to a felony.
Altering genuine currency so that it “purports to be genuine or has different terms or provisions” with intent to defraud falls under Subdivision 1 (Manufacturing; printing). This is considered a form of counterfeiting and carries the severe felony penalty of up to 20 years/$100,000.
Possessing prop money is generally not illegal if it’s clearly marked as “copy” or “for motion picture use only” and there is no intent to pass it as genuine currency to defraud someone. However, attempting to use realistic prop money in a real transaction would likely constitute uttering under Subdivision 3.
If you unknowingly receive a counterfeit bill and later realize it’s fake, you should not try to pass it on. You should turn it over to local police or the Secret Service. Possessing it without intent to defraud or pass it is not a crime under this statute.
Yes, a felony conviction for counterfeiting currency under Minnesota law typically results in the loss of firearm rights under both state and federal law. Restoring these rights after a felony conviction can be a complex legal process, if possible at all.
Yes, many countries view counterfeiting as a serious crime involving moral turpitude. A conviction, especially a felony, can make an individual inadmissible to foreign countries like Canada, the UK, and others, potentially requiring special waivers for entry, if granted at all.
Yes, individuals or businesses who suffer financial losses due to accepting counterfeit currency passed by a defendant can potentially file civil lawsuits to recover damages, separate from any criminal restitution ordered.
Expungement (sealing the record) might be possible for counterfeiting convictions under Minnesota law, but eligibility depends on the level of the offense (gross misdemeanor vs. felony), the case outcome, completion of sentence, and other statutory factors. Felony expungements are generally more difficult to obtain.
A conviction for counterfeiting currency in Minnesota under § 609.632 carries consequences that ripple far beyond court-imposed sentences. These charges, often felonies involving dishonesty and perceived threats to economic stability, create significant long-term hurdles. The resulting criminal record can persistently obstruct opportunities related to employment, housing, and financial well-being. Furthermore, given that counterfeiting U.S. currency is also a federal offense, state charges can attract federal scrutiny and potentially lead to separate federal prosecution or enhanced monitoring, adding another layer of complexity and stress for the individual involved.
The stigma associated with counterfeiting – viewed as a direct attack on the financial system – can be particularly damaging. It raises fundamental questions about an individual’s trustworthiness, impacting personal relationships and professional prospects alike. Rebuilding credibility and navigating life after such a conviction requires immense effort and often involves overcoming systemic barriers created by the criminal record and the nature of the offense itself.
Because counterfeiting U.S. currency directly impacts federal interests, state charges under § 609.632 often trigger involvement from federal law enforcement agencies, primarily the U.S. Secret Service. Even if charges are only pursued at the state level initially, the Secret Service may conduct its own investigation. This can lead to separate federal charges, which often carry even harsher penalties and mandatory minimum sentences. A state conviction might also be used to enhance sentencing in a subsequent federal case. The potential for federal involvement adds significant pressure and complexity to defending against state counterfeiting allegations.
This federal nexus means that even resolving a state case might not be the end of the legal troubles. The individual may remain under federal surveillance or be flagged in federal databases. The specter of federal prosecution can loom large, impacting decisions made during the state case process and creating ongoing anxiety long after the state matter concludes.
A conviction for counterfeiting severely damages an individual’s perceived financial trustworthiness. Banks, lenders, and credit agencies view such convictions as major red flags indicating a high risk of fraud. Consequently, obtaining loans, mortgages, credit cards, or even opening basic bank accounts can become extremely difficult, if not impossible. Access to credit is fundamental for major life purchases like homes and cars, and a counterfeiting conviction can effectively lock individuals out of mainstream financial services, hindering their ability to achieve financial stability and rebuild their lives.
This lack of trust extends beyond formal financial institutions. Landlords may be unwilling to rent property, and business partners may be hesitant to engage with someone convicted of financial fraud. The conviction creates a lasting barrier to participating fully in the economy, reinforcing the long-term negative impact on the individual’s financial future and overall well-being.
Similar to check forgery, a counterfeiting conviction presents substantial obstacles in the job market. Background checks revealing this type of offense frequently lead to automatic disqualification, especially for jobs involving finance, security, government, or positions of trust. The inherent dishonesty associated with counterfeiting makes employers across various sectors reluctant to hire, fearing potential risk to their business assets and reputation. Professional licenses required for many careers may be denied, suspended, or revoked following a conviction.
Finding gainful employment becomes a significant challenge, potentially forcing individuals into lower-paying jobs or unstable work, regardless of their skills or qualifications. This limits earning potential and makes it harder to meet financial obligations, including court-ordered fines or restitution. Overcoming these employment barriers requires persistence and often involves seeking opportunities with employers willing to consider applicants with criminal records, which can be limited.
Unless expunged, a Minnesota conviction for counterfeiting currency becomes a permanent part of an individual’s criminal record. This felony or gross misdemeanor record follows the person throughout their life, appearing on background checks for employment, housing, volunteering, adoption, international travel, and firearm purchases. The label of having committed a serious financial crime involving deceit can lead to ongoing prejudice and lost opportunities years after the sentence has been completed.
While Minnesota law allows for expungement petitions under certain conditions, the process is not guaranteed, especially for felony convictions. Living with a permanent record for counterfeiting means facing continuous scrutiny and potential judgment, impacting self-esteem and the ability to fully reintegrate. It serves as a constant reminder of the past offense and complicates efforts to build a stable, productive future free from the shadow of the conviction.
Counterfeiting U.S. currency is unique in that it falls under both state (§ 609.632) and federal jurisdiction. An attorney handling these cases must understand the potential interplay between state and federal law enforcement (like the Secret Service) and prosecutors. They can advise on whether a case is likely to remain solely within the state system or if federal charges are a possibility. This understanding is crucial for developing appropriate defense strategies and advising the client on the full scope of potential consequences. Knowing which agency is leading the investigation and the specific laws being applied is fundamental to navigating the complexities of a counterfeiting charge and protecting the client’s rights effectively across potentially overlapping jurisdictions.
The prosecution must prove specific mental states: “intent to defraud” for all counterfeiting offenses and “having reason to know” for uttering/possessing charges. A defense attorney’s critical role involves rigorously challenging the prosecution’s evidence regarding these subjective elements. This may involve presenting evidence of the accused’s legitimate reasons for possessing certain equipment, demonstrating circumstances where the accused genuinely believed currency was real, or highlighting the lack of concrete proof linking the accused’s actions to a deliberate scheme to deceive. Successfully creating reasonable doubt about these crucial mental state elements can be the key to defeating the charges or securing a more favorable outcome for the client.
Counterfeiting cases often rely on physical evidence like seized currency, printing equipment, computers, and potentially forensic analysis such as fingerprinting or handwriting comparisons (on money orders). A defense attorney, often working with investigators or forensic analysts, will meticulously examine how this evidence was collected, handled (chain of custody), and analyzed. They look for procedural errors, constitutional violations (like illegal searches), or weaknesses in the forensic findings. Challenging the admissibility or reliability of the state’s physical and forensic evidence is a cornerstone of building a strong defense against counterfeiting allegations, potentially leading to the exclusion of key evidence needed for conviction.
Given the severe potential penalties, particularly for manufacturing or high-value uttering, exploring all resolution options is vital. An attorney can engage in negotiations with the prosecutor, leveraging weaknesses in the state’s case or mitigating circumstances surrounding the client’s involvement, to seek reduced charges (e.g., pleading to a lower-level offense) or alternative sentencing arrangements that might avoid lengthy incarceration. If a favorable negotiation is not possible or advisable, the attorney must be prepared to vigorously defend the client at trial, presenting evidence, cross-examining prosecution witnesses, and making compelling legal arguments to persuade a judge or jury towards an acquittal.
