These materials are not now suitable for use in banknotes, but further dramatic developments can radically change this assessment. There are many other such examples. In the recent past, the counterfeiting-deterrence research and development program at the BEP has drawn primarily on external technical work, with little internal research.
This balance may be shifting; the BEP recently announced the formation of the Security Technology Institute within the organization Church, The breadth and quality of the investigations, procurements, and external research and development support of anticounterfeiting methods, techniques, and materials has improved considerably since the earlier National Materials Advisory Board studies.
The committee strongly supports a more balanced approach between external and internal work, as long as the internal work does not duplicate external efforts. Internal research and development activities that included a. The same mechanisms suggested above for keeping the Department of Treasury up-to-date with advancements in reprographic technology and counterfeiting methods e. However, more in-depth preparatory work would be required, since the amount and detail of information is immense.
The benefit of such planned interactions would be a leveraging of the research already going on and increased awareness in the general research community regarding the needs for counterfeit-deterrent features.
A program must be in place to continually devise and evaluate new deterrent features. An essential part of such a program would be the re-evaluation of the testing specifications and their relevance to real-world wear and tear in order to not preclude the use of some exceptionally effective features that may fail an overly demanding test. The current BEP efforts to examine the suitability of chemical resistance tests should be extended to other test specifications.
Some consideration should also be given to learning how banknotes of different denominations are handled and determining if the durability requirements can be different for higher denomination banknotes.
The BEP estimates that under normal circumstances when competitive contracting must be used, approximately 2 to 5 years are required from the time it decides to use a new deterrent feature until that deterrent appears in new currency Sellers, The time required for implementation can be considerably shorter if the changes can be implemented internally without the need for competitive contracting.
Approximately 1 to 2 years are required to develop the specifications, complete all the testing, and produce proofs. Up to 2 years may be required for the competitive contracting process, and 1 year for production incorporation. Additional time may be required if no offer fully meets the specification, if the proposed prices are too far above the estimated cost, etc.
However, if the new feature is an upgrade to a current feature, then the process time can be shortened to about 1 year. Thus, under normal circumstances a feature must be targeted at a counterfeiting threat well before the threat is fully realized.
Counterfeiters will thus enjoy a period of time to learn. The security thread provides a case in point. The thread was targeted at counterfeiters who were using nonimpact printing reprographic technology. The existing supplier of currency paper originally expected to have the new paper available for the printing of the first notes with the new thread within 2 years of go-ahead.
However, the introduction of the thread was delayed for a year since the supplier had difficulty in meeting all the specifications during production scale-up. Of course, the older notes without the thread are still legal tender. Although these simulations would not withstand close examination, they have been successfully passed Brown, a 2.
As banknotes containing the security thread become more prevalent, it is highly probable that professional counterfeiters will devote more effort to producing better simulations 3. Methods must be developed to shorten the time required to produce redesigned banknotes once the decision to proceed has been made. As color printers and copiers become more prevalent and sophisticated, effectiveness lifetimes of deterrent features may decrease, making faster response critically important.
Strategies could include conducting additional production risk assessment before the changes are finalized, expediting the contracting process, and establishing a timetable for periodic assessment and replacement of, addition to, or modification of counterfeit-deterrent features.
As part of a major currency redesign effort, some visible features could be incorporated in anticipation of future threats but not initially disclosed. This strategy may prevent counterfeiters from having advance notice of their presence and ample time to practice their simulation. Features could also be introduced that lend themselves to further improvements and upgrading as required, without the necessity for major design changes.
Of course, too many changes within too short a time period would only serve to confuse the public, making the counterfeiters' job easier.
There is no single visible deterrent feature that is readily recognizable, highly durable, impractical to counterfeit or simulate, available at low cost, and easy to produce. Indeed, if a single dominating feature were employed, the currency would tend to be less secure, since that feature would present a single target for the counterfeiter. A determined professional counterfeiter still may be. Therefore, a combination of features will be required to provide a high level of practical counterfeit deterrence.
In general, any single deterrent feature can be simulated or overcome if the counterfeiter is creative and willing to perform the necessary additional steps. For that matter, given sufficient time and effort, any combination of features can be simulated.
These tasks would not necessarily require sophisticated technical expertise or particularly expensive equipment, since simulation need not be highly accurate. The general public appears to be reluctant to observe and confront, and hence the chances are good that a banknote will only undergo a cursory inspection at the first encounter.
The most straightforward way to curb counterfeiting is at the source. A copier or computer printer can be prevented from copying a banknote by employing appropriate pattern recognition technology. Such a capability would significantly discourage the casual, nontechnical counterfeiter. The effectiveness of such devices would be enhanced if a standard banknote feature, or small set of such features, was adopted by many countries; however such features must be unique to currency to preclude inadvertent disabling of the copier or printer.
Whereas the simulation of multiple deterrent features may not require expertise and sophisticated equipment, it does require an investment of time—a considerable investment if the simulations are done by hand, one at a time. The goal of a balanced system of deterrents, therefore, must be to make the process of overall simulation so time consuming that the counterfeiter is discouraged and abandons the task. This is accomplished by deploying a complementary set of features, each requiring a different simulation process.
Each additional feature should address a potentially weak attribute of the existing set that is, it should add value to the overall system of deterrents. Such a defense in depth would address different reprographic technologies, different levels of counterfeiter expertise and tenacity, and the requirements of different viewing conditions for authentication.
Care must be taken, however, that the overall visual effect remains balanced so that one deterrent does not dominate, lest the lesser deterrent not be carefully viewed. The combination of features must not produce an unpleasant appearance. Examples of possible combinations are presented later in this chapter. The primary threat is the casual counterfeiter, defined in Chapter 2 as an individual who will attempt to use the output of a reprographics system directly without engaging in additional complicated steps needed to simulate deterrent features.
Individual features that do not reproduce, or features that result in the copy appearing blatantly obvious, are therefore effective against this type of threat since an attempt will probably not be made to pass it. Any number of features that can not be easily copied or scanned satisfy this requirement; e. Discouraging the hacker is more difficult and is best accomplished by having a larger number of deterrents, each requiring a different means and material for simulation.
The goal here is one of attrition; overwhelm with so many tasks. These individuals deal in much higher volumes than the casual counterfeiter and hacker, and their product must be of higher quality. They are more subject to the economics, time and cost, of the process.
As part of a system of features, the banknote substrate offers an important dimension for embedding features that are particularly useful and compatible with many other surface features. Security threads, watermarks, patterns, images, etc. Visible only in transmission and not in reflection, they are immune to reproduction by copying or scanning means. Required is the allocation of a clear, unprinted area for viewing clarity. In summary, the following general criteria can be considered for evaluating combinations of anticounterfeiting deterrents:.
Combinations of features that score high using the above criteria should be incorporated into test banknotes. These could then be subjected to adversarial analysis to determine their deterrent effectiveness and used to gauge public acceptability through mechanisms such as focus groups.
Overt, visible deterrent features in a banknote that are very difficult to reproduce serve as the most obvious means of authentication. But every feature should be viewed as having a finite lifetime, since the threat will continue to evolve as reprographic technology continues to advance and the social environment changes. The rate of counterfeiting has been observed.
Counterfeiting using copiers and printers has been observed to be increasing at a geometric rate during the last 3 years.
Therefore, additional features, or additional enforcement actions, will be needed to reverse the rate and cause it to fall back to a lower level. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice.
Popular Courses. Financial Fraud Banking Fraud. Compare Accounts. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear. Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace. Related Articles. Financial Fraud Can you spot fake money? Corporate About Us. Partner Links. What Is Cryptocurrency? A cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography and is difficult to counterfeit because of this security feature.
Singh told the Times of India that he was surprised that rupee notes were also not banned when their counterfeits were almost double the number of fake 1, rupee notes. Overall, during the last decade, the RBI detected a total of 4. Of those, about 1.
The most commonly counterfeited notes were 50 yuan and yuan bills. Our mission at Marketplace is to raise the economic intelligence of the country. Marketplace helps you understand it all, will fact-based, approachable, and unbiased reporting. Generous support from listeners and readers is what powers our nonprofit news—and your donation today will help provide this essential service. Skip to content. Jana Kasperkevic Mar 28, Share Now on:. Share Now:.
Stories You Might Like Is the dollar no longer king in the international economy? Attacks on currency have real economic consequences. How the U. British pound hits year low overnight.
0コメント