Twin Cities Criminal Lawyer

Counterfeiting of Currency

Defending Against Counterfeiting Currency Charges in Minneapolis & St. Paul: Understanding Minnesota Statute § 609.632

An accusation of counterfeiting currency in Minnesota is an exceptionally serious felony offense, carrying severe penalties and the potential for devastating long-term consequences. Governed by Minnesota Statute § 609.632, this crime targets the illicit creation, alteration, possession, or use of counterfeit United States currency, postal money orders, Federal Reserve notes, or other U.S. obligations, all with the intent to defraud. For individuals and entities within the Twin Cities metropolitan area—including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and the surrounding Minnesota counties—a clear understanding of this complex statute is paramount. Charges can arise from various activities, from printing fake bills and possessing counterfeiting tools to knowingly passing fraudulent currency in transactions.

The implications of a counterfeiting conviction under § 609.632 are profound. Depending on the specifics of the offense, such as the amount of counterfeit currency involved or the methods used, penalties can include lengthy imprisonment (up to 20 years), substantial fines (up to $100,000), and a permanent felony record. This can irrevocably damage one’s reputation and future prospects concerning employment, housing, financial credit, and fundamental civil rights. Given the sophisticated nature of counterfeiting operations and the often intricate evidence involved (including forensic analysis of currency and digital devices), navigating these allegations requires a robust, knowledgeable, and strategic defense. For those confronted with such charges in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, a comprehensive grasp of the offense’s elements, potential penalties, and available defense strategies under Minnesota law is the first critical step toward protecting their freedom and future.

Minnesota Statute § 609.632: The Legal Framework for Counterfeiting of Currency Offenses

Minnesota state law defines and criminalizes the counterfeiting of United States currency and other federal obligations under Statute § 609.632. This statute details the various prohibited acts, including manufacturing, possessing tools for, or uttering counterfeit items, all requiring an intent to defraud. It also outlines a tiered penalty structure. This law is the primary basis for state-level counterfeiting prosecutions in Minnesota, including the Twin Cities.

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.

Key Elements of Counterfeiting Currency Charges in Minnesota

To secure a conviction for counterfeiting currency under Minnesota Statute § 609.632, the prosecution must prove each essential element of the specific alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This stringent standard applies in all Minnesota courts, including those within Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and the broader Twin Cities metropolitan area. A failure by the state to definitively establish any single component of the crime as defined in the statute—whether it involves manufacturing, possessing counterfeiting tools, or uttering counterfeit items—must lead to an acquittal. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of these elements is critical for anyone facing such serious allegations.

  • Intent to Defraud (Common to all Subdivisions): A universal and paramount element across all subdivisions of § 609.632 is that the accused must have acted with the intent to defraud. This means the individual possessed a conscious and willful purpose to deceive another person, entity, or the government, typically to obtain money, property, or services unlawfully, or to cause a financial loss. Merely possessing a poorly made copy of a bill without intending to pass it as genuine, for example, would not meet this high threshold. Proving this subjective fraudulent intent is a primary task for prosecutors in Minneapolis and St. Paul, often relying on circumstantial evidence.
  • Falsely Makes, Alters, Prints, Scans, Images, or Copies (Subdivision 1 – Manufacturing): For charges under subdivision 1, the prosecution must prove the accused engaged in the actual creation or alteration of specified U.S. financial instruments. This includes falsely making, altering, printing, scanning, imaging, or copying any United States postal money order, United States currency, Federal Reserve note, or other U.S. obligation or security. The key is that the resulting item purports to be genuine or has different terms or provisions than an authentic item. This covers a range of modern and traditional counterfeiting methods, from sophisticated printing operations to digital scanning and alteration of genuine notes.
  • Makes, Engraves, Possesses, or Transfers Means for False Reproduction (Subdivision 2 – Tools): Under subdivision 2, the state must prove the accused, with intent to defraud, engaged in making, engraving, possessing, or transferring any plate, instrument, computer, printer, camera, software, paper, cloth, fabric, ink, or other material specifically for the false reproduction of the U.S. financial instruments listed in subdivision 1. This subdivision targets the tools and materials used in counterfeiting operations, indicating a level of preparation or facilitation of the crime. Possession of such items in a Hennepin County residence, if coupled with fraudulent intent, could lead to these serious charges.
  • Utters or Possesses with Intent to Utter Counterfeit Items (Subdivision 3 – Offering): For charges under subdivision 3, the prosecution must establish that the accused, with intent to defraud, either uttered (i.e., passed, tendered, or attempted to use as genuine) or possessed with intent to utter any counterfeit U.S. postal money order, currency, Federal Reserve note, or other U.S. obligation. “Uttering” involves trying to circulate the fake currency. Possession alone is not sufficient; it must be coupled with the intent to pass it off fraudulently. For instance, attempting to use a counterfeit $100 bill at a store in Ramsey County would constitute uttering.
  • Having Reason to Know the Item is Counterfeit (Subdivision 3 – Offering): A critical element for charges under subdivision 3 (uttering or possessing with intent to utter) is that the accused must have had reason to know that the money order, currency, note, or obligation was forged, counterfeited, falsely made, altered, or printed. This “reason to know” standard is somewhat less stringent than actual knowledge but still requires the prosecution to show that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have been aware of the item’s illicit nature, perhaps due to its appearance, source, or the circumstances of its acquisition.

Severe Penalties for Counterfeiting Currency Convictions in Minnesota

A conviction for counterfeiting currency under Minnesota Statute § 609.632 is a felony offense that carries some of the most severe penalties found in Minnesota’s property crime statutes. The law reflects the profound threat that counterfeiting poses to the integrity of the nation’s financial system. Individuals convicted of these crimes in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or any other Minnesota jurisdiction face the prospect of lengthy imprisonment, extremely substantial fines, or both. It is imperative for anyone accused under this statute to fully grasp the gravity of these potential consequences.

The penalties are detailed in § 609.632, Subdivision 4. Notably, manufacturing counterfeit currency or possessing the means for its reproduction (Subdivisions 1 and 2) carry a flat, high-level felony penalty. For uttering or possessing counterfeit currency (Subdivision 3), the penalties are tiered based on the value of the counterfeit items involved and any prior convictions, similar to theft or check forgery. The statute also allows for aggregation of values within a six-month period.

Penalties for Manufacturing or Possessing Counterfeiting Tools (Subd. 1 or 2)

For individuals convicted of violating subdivision 1 (manufacturing, printing, etc.) or subdivision 2 (means for false reproduction):

  • Potential Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 20 years or payment of a fine of not more than $100,000, or both.This is a significant felony, reflecting the seriousness of engaging in the production or facilitation of counterfeit currency.

Penalties for Uttering or Possessing Counterfeit Currency (Subd. 3)

The penalties for violating subdivision 3 are tiered:

  • More than $35,000 (Subd. 4(b)(1)): If the counterfeit item(s) are used to obtain or attempt to obtain property/services valued at more than $35,000, or the aggregate face value is more than $35,000.
    • Potential Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $100,000, or both.
  • More than $5,000 up to $35,000 (Subd. 4(b)(2)): If the value is more than $5,000 (but not more than $35,000), or the aggregate face value is in this range.
    • Potential Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.
  • More than $1,000 up to $5,000, OR $1,000 or Less with Prior Convictions (Subd. 4(b)(3)): This tier covers two scenarios:
    • (i) If the value is more than $1,000 (but not more than $5,000), or the aggregate face value is in this range.
    • (ii) If the value is $1,000 or less, BUT the person has a qualifying prior conviction within the preceding five years for certain offenses (including counterfeiting, theft, forgery, etc.) for which they received a felony or gross misdemeanor sentence (or a stayed sentence that could have been a felony/gross misdemeanor).
    • Potential Sentence for either scenario: Imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. This enhancement for prior convictions is critical for defendants in Hennepin or Ramsey County with relevant criminal histories.
  • Gross Misdemeanor: $1,000 or Less (Subd. 4(b)(4)): If the value is no more than $1,000, or the aggregate face value is no more than $1,000 (and there is no prior conviction that elevates it under Subd. 4(b)(3)(ii)).
    • Potential Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 364 days or a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

The aggregation clause in Subdivision 5 allows values from offenses within a six-month period to be combined, potentially leading to a much more severe charge level for individuals in the Twin Cities.

Counterfeiting Currency in Action: Illustrative Scenarios in the Twin Cities Metro

The crime of counterfeiting currency, as detailed in Minnesota Statute § 609.632, involves a range of illicit activities aimed at defrauding others through the use or creation of fake U.S. money or postal money orders. These offenses can vary widely in sophistication, from individuals passing a few poorly made bills to organized operations producing large quantities of counterfeit notes. Understanding how these illegal activities might manifest in real-world situations within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area can help clarify the statute’s broad reach.

The essence of these crimes lies in the intent to deceive and the involvement of falsified U.S. currency or obligations. Whether it’s a small-scale attempt at a Minneapolis convenience store or a larger distribution scheme uncovered in St. Paul, the legal ramifications are severe. The following examples, reflecting potential scenarios in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or surrounding communities, illustrate the application of § 609.632.

Scenario: Printing Fake $20 Bills Using a Home Computer and Printer in Minneapolis

A Minneapolis resident uses a high-quality scanner, computer software, and an advanced color printer to create counterfeit $20 bills in their apartment. They carefully select special paper to mimic the feel of real currency. Their goal is to produce these fake bills and use them for small purchases. This act of falsely making, printing, scanning, or imaging United States currency with the intent to defraud falls directly under § 609.632, Subd. 1 (Manufacturing). The possession of the computer, printer, scanner, software, and special paper for this purpose also constitutes a violation of Subd. 2 (Means for false reproduction).

Scenario: Possessing Washed $5 Bills and Printing Dies for $100 Bills in St. Paul

Law enforcement in St. Paul investigates an individual suspected of counterfeiting. A search reveals a collection of genuine $5 bills that have been chemically washed to remove the ink, along with engraved plates or digital templates designed to print the features of $100 bills onto this washed currency paper. The individual intended to create higher-denomination counterfeit notes from lower-denomination genuine ones. Possessing a plate or instrument (and other materials like washed bills and inks) for the false reproduction of United States currency, with intent to defraud, is a violation of § 609.632, Subd. 2. If they had already printed some, it would also be a Subd. 1 violation.

Scenario: Knowingly Using a Counterfeit $100 Bill at a Hennepin County Restaurant

A person in Hennepin County receives a counterfeit $100 bill from an illicit source, and they have good reason to know it’s fake (e.g., poor quality, unusual texture, or they were told it was counterfeit). They then go to a restaurant and attempt to pay for their meal with this fake $100 bill, hoping to receive genuine currency as change. This act of uttering (offering as genuine) counterfeit United States currency, with intent to defraud the restaurant, and having reason to know it is counterfeit, constitutes a violation of § 609.632, Subd. 3. The penalty level would depend on the value of the meal (property/services obtained) and if other counterfeit bills were passed.

Scenario: Selling Bundles of Counterfeit $50 Bills to Others for Distribution in Ramsey County

An individual in Ramsey County is part of a larger counterfeiting ring and is responsible for distributing batches of fake $50 bills to others who will then attempt to pass them at various retail locations. This person possesses with intent to utter (by transferring to others for circulation) counterfeit United States currency, with intent to defraud (by facilitating the overall scheme), and having reason to know the bills are counterfeit. This falls under § 609.632, Subd. 3. The aggregate face value of the bills possessed with this intent would determine the severity of the charge.

Scenario: Altering a U.S. Postal Money Order to Increase its Value in Anoka County

Someone in Anoka County obtains a legitimate U.S. Postal Money Order for a small amount, for example, $10. They then skillfully alter the numerals and written amount on the money order to make it appear to be for $100 or $1,000. They intend to cash this altered money order. This act of falsely altering a United States postal money order so that it has different terms or provisions, with the intent to defraud, is a violation of § 609.632, Subd. 1. Attempting to cash it would also be a violation of Subd. 3.

Building a Formidable Defense Against Counterfeiting Currency Charges in the Twin Cities

Facing allegations of counterfeiting currency under Minnesota Statute § 609.632 in the Twin Cities area—whether in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or the surrounding counties of Dakota, Anoka, or Washington—is an exceptionally serious situation. These are felony charges that can lead to severe penalties, including lengthy imprisonment and crippling fines. However, an accusation is not a conviction. The prosecution carries the heavy burden of proving every element of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. A robust, well-researched, and strategically implemented defense is absolutely essential to challenge the state’s case, protect the accused’s constitutional rights, and strive for the most favorable possible outcome.

Developing an effective defense against counterfeiting charges begins with a meticulous examination of all evidence, including the alleged counterfeit currency or instruments, any tools or materials seized, witness statements, and the methods used by investigators (often including federal agencies like the Secret Service, even in state prosecutions). Many counterfeiting cases hinge on proving the “intent to defraud” and, for uttering offenses, that the accused had “reason to know” the currency was counterfeit. These subjective elements can be difficult for the prosecution to establish conclusively and often provide significant avenues for defense. Minnesota law and the principles of justice demand a fair process, and exploring all potential defenses with skilled legal counsel is paramount.

Lack of Intent to Defraud

The “intent to defraud” is the linchpin of all counterfeiting offenses under § 609.632. If the prosecution cannot prove this specific fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges cannot be sustained.

  • No Deceptive Purpose: The accused may have possessed or even created something that resembles currency without any intention of passing it off as genuine or deceiving anyone. For example, creating “play money” for a theatrical production or possessing a novelty bill, with no intent for it to enter circulation as real currency, would lack fraudulent intent.
  • Mistake or Accidental Possession: An individual might have accidentally come into possession of a counterfeit bill (e.g., received it as change) and been unaware of its nature, or perhaps was attempting to turn it over to authorities. Such scenarios would negate the deliberate intent to defraud.
  • Mental State Impairment: In some cases, an individual’s mental state or capacity at the time of the alleged offense might have prevented them from forming the specific intent to defraud. This would require careful psychiatric or psychological evaluation.

No Knowledge or “Reason to Know” Currency Was Counterfeit (for § 609.632, Subd. 3)

For charges of uttering or possessing counterfeit currency with intent to utter (Subd. 3), the prosecution must prove the accused had “reason to know” the currency was counterfeit.

  • Genuine Belief in Authenticity: The accused may have received a counterfeit bill in a transaction and genuinely believed it to be legitimate, subsequently attempting to use it without any suspicion. If they had no reasonable basis to suspect its falsity, this element is missing.
  • Quality of Counterfeit: If the counterfeit bill was of exceptionally high quality, making it difficult for an ordinary person to detect, it strengthens the argument that the accused lacked a reason to know it was fake. Conversely, a very poor fake might suggest reason to know.
  • Circumstances of Acquisition: If the accused received the bill from a seemingly legitimate source (e.g., a bank, a reputable store), they would have less reason to suspect it was counterfeit compared to acquiring it under suspicious circumstances.

Challenging “Possession” or “Manufacturing” Elements

The physical acts of manufacturing, possessing tools, or possessing/uttering counterfeit currency can be contested.

  • No Actual Possession or Control: The accused may not have had legal “possession” of the counterfeit items or manufacturing tools. For example, items might have been found in a shared residence or vehicle where the accused did not have exclusive control or knowledge of their presence, thereby negating knowing possession.
  • Tools Not for Counterfeiting Currency: If charged under Subd. 2 (means for false reproduction), the defense might argue that the seized items (e.g., printer, scanner, software) were possessed for legitimate purposes and were not intended or specifically adapted for counterfeiting U.S. currency. The prosecution must link the tools to the illicit purpose.
  • Not the Manufacturer or Alterer: If charged under Subd. 1, the defense can argue that the accused was not the person who actually made, altered, or printed the counterfeit currency, and that the state lacks sufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the manufacturing process.

Violations of Constitutional Rights and Procedural Errors

The evidence against the accused may have been obtained in violation of their constitutional rights, or there may have been other significant procedural errors by law enforcement.

  • Illegal Search and Seizure: If counterfeit currency or manufacturing equipment was found as a result of an unlawful search of the accused’s person, home, or vehicle (i.e., without a valid warrant or probable cause for a warrantless search), the evidence may be suppressed and inadmissible in a Hennepin or Ramsey County court. This could cripple the prosecution’s case.
  • Miranda Violations: If the accused made incriminating statements during a custodial interrogation without being properly advised of their Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney), those statements may be inadmissible.
  • Chain of Custody Issues: The prosecution must properly maintain and document the chain of custody for physical evidence like counterfeit bills or manufacturing tools. Any significant breaks or inconsistencies in the chain of custody can call the integrity of the evidence into question.

Minnesota Counterfeiting Statute § 609.632: Answering Your Pressing Questions for the Twin Cities

If you are facing accusations related to counterfeiting currency in the Twin Cities under Minnesota Statute § 609.632, you likely have urgent questions. Below are answers to some common queries regarding this serious area of law.

What is the main difference between “Counterfeiting of Currency” (§ 609.632) and other forgery crimes in Minnesota?

Counterfeiting of Currency under § 609.632 specifically deals with falsely making, altering, possessing tools for, or uttering/possessing United States postal money orders, United States currency, Federal Reserve notes, or other obligations or securities of the United States. Other forgery statutes, like § 609.625 (Aggravated Forgery) or § 609.63 (Forgery), typically deal with different types of documents (e.g., legal documents, business records, checks not covered by specific check forgery statutes). Counterfeiting currency often carries very severe penalties due to its impact on the national financial system.

Can I be charged with counterfeiting in Minneapolis just for having a high-quality color printer and scanner?

No, simply possessing a printer and scanner, even high-quality ones, is not a crime. Under § 609.632, Subd. 2, you would only be charged if you possessed such equipment (computer, printer, scanner, software, etc.) with the intent to defraud by using it for the false reproduction of U.S. currency or other listed U.S. obligations. The fraudulent intent and the purpose of the equipment are key.

What are the penalties if I’m convicted of making fake $100 bills in St. Paul, even if I never spent them?

Under § 609.632, Subd. 1 (manufacturing) and Subd. 4(a), if you are convicted of falsely making U.S. currency with intent to defraud, you 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. This applies even if you haven’t yet uttered (spent) the counterfeit bills.

What does “having reason to know” a bill is counterfeit mean for a charge of uttering in Hennepin County?

“Having reason to know” (under § 609.632, Subd. 3) means that based on the facts and circumstances, a reasonable person in your situation would have suspected or believed the currency was counterfeit. This could be due to the bill’s obviously poor quality, how you obtained it (e.g., from a suspicious source or for a suspiciously low price), or if someone told you it was fake. It’s a lower standard than proving you had actual, direct knowledge, but still requires the prosecution to show there were indicators.

If I unknowingly receive a counterfeit bill as change in Ramsey County and then try to use it, am I guilty?

If you genuinely had no reason to know the bill was counterfeit when you received it and subsequently tried to use it (still without realizing it was fake), you would lack the “having reason to know” element required by § 609.632, Subd. 3, and also likely the “intent to defraud.” Proving your innocent possession and lack of knowledge would be crucial to your defense.

My friend gave me a fake $50 bill as a joke. If I get caught with it in Dakota County, can I be charged?

Possessing a counterfeit bill can lead to charges under § 609.632, Subd. 3 if you possess it with intent to utter (pass as genuine) and with intent to defraud, and you have reason to know it’s counterfeit. If it was clearly a joke, you had no intent to defraud or utter it as real, and perhaps it was obviously fake, these factors would be critical to your defense. However, possessing even joke money that too closely resembles real currency can sometimes attract law enforcement attention.

Can I be charged in Anoka County for possessing just one counterfeit $20 bill?

Yes, you can be charged for possessing even one counterfeit bill if the elements of § 609.632, Subd. 3 are met (intent to defraud, intent to utter, and reason to know it’s counterfeit). The penalty, if convicted, would likely be at the lower end of the tiered system (Subd. 4(b)(4)), potentially a gross misdemeanor, assuming the value is $1,000 or less and you have no qualifying prior convictions.

What does “aggregate face value” mean for sentencing in counterfeiting cases in Washington County?

The statute allows the prosecution (§ 609.632, Subd. 5) to add up the face value of all counterfeit items you allegedly manufactured, uttered, or possessed in violation of the statute within any six-month period. This “aggregate face value” is then used to determine the severity level of the charge and potential sentence under Subd. 4(b). Multiple small offenses can thus be combined into a very serious felony charge.

Is it a state or federal crime to counterfeit U.S. currency in Minnesota?

Counterfeiting U.S. currency is both a state crime under Minnesota Statute § 609.632 and a federal crime. The U.S. Secret Service is the primary federal agency investigating counterfeiting. It’s possible for an individual to face charges in either state or federal court, or sometimes (though less common for the exact same conduct) both, depending on the circumstances and prosecutorial decisions. This article focuses on the Minnesota state law.

What if the “counterfeit” money I made was clearly marked “play money” or “for motion picture use only”?

If the items are so clearly marked or obviously fake that they could not reasonably be mistaken for genuine currency and were not intended to be passed as such with an intent to defraud, then it’s unlikely to meet the requirements for counterfeiting under § 609.632. The statute targets items that “purport to be genuine.” However, creating items that too closely resemble real currency, even if marked, can still sometimes lead to legal issues or confusion.

Can a business in the Twin Cities be charged if an employee is caught passing counterfeit money received from a customer?

If a business, through its employees, unknowingly accepts a counterfeit bill from a customer and then an employee unknowingly tries to pass it again (e.g., by giving it as change or making a bank deposit), the business and employee would likely lack the “intent to defraud” and “reason to know” elements. However, if management became aware bills were counterfeit and then directed employees to try and pass them, the business and individuals involved could face charges.

What if I find counterfeit money and turn it into the Minneapolis police? Will I be charged?

Generally, if you find what you believe to be counterfeit money and promptly turn it over to the police or a bank, explaining how you found it, you are acting as a responsible citizen. This action would demonstrate a lack of intent to defraud or utter. It’s important to be truthful and cooperative.

Are digital images or scans of money covered by this Minnesota statute?

Yes, § 609.632, Subd. 1 explicitly includes “scans, images, or copies” of U.S. currency or obligations if done with intent to defraud so that it purports to be genuine. Subdivision 2 also includes “computer, printer, camera, software” as means for false reproduction.

What is the statute of limitations for counterfeiting currency charges in Minnesota?

For felony offenses in Minnesota, including counterfeiting currency, the statute of limitations is generally three years from the commission of the crime (Minnesota Statute § 628.26). However, this period can be extended under certain circumstances, such as if the defendant is not an inhabitant or usually resident within the state.

If I am accused of counterfeiting, should I allow investigators to search my home or computer in the Twin Cities?

You have a constitutional right to refuse a search if law enforcement does not have a valid search warrant. You should not consent to a search of your home, computer, or personal belongings without first speaking to a criminal defense attorney. An attorney can advise you on your rights and the implications of consenting to a search.

The Grave and Enduring Consequences of a Counterfeiting Currency Conviction in Minnesota

A conviction for counterfeiting currency under Minnesota Statute § 609.632 is a serious felony that carries some of the most severe penalties in state law, reflecting the profound threat such acts pose to economic stability and public trust. The long-term consequences for individuals convicted in the Twin Cities metropolitan area—including Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding counties of Hennepin and Ramsey—extend far beyond any sentence of imprisonment or monetary fines, creating lifelong obstacles to personal and professional well-being.

The stigma of a counterfeiting conviction, a crime synonymous with significant deceit and an attack on the financial system, can be particularly difficult to overcome. It can profoundly impact an individual’s future employment, financial independence, civil liberties, and overall standing within the Minnesota community.

Devastating Impact on Your Criminal Record and Future Background Checks

A felony conviction for counterfeiting currency results in a permanent and highly damaging criminal record. This record is readily accessible through background checks conducted by virtually all employers, landlords, educational institutions, professional licensing boards, and financial institutions in Minnesota. In the competitive environment of Minneapolis and St. Paul, such a conviction often serves as an immediate disqualifier for a wide range of opportunities, effectively closing doors to legitimate pathways for success and rehabilitation for many years, if not permanently.

Severe Employment and Professional Licensing Barriers in the Twin Cities

Securing or maintaining any form of meaningful employment becomes extraordinarily challenging with a counterfeiting conviction. Employers in the Twin Cities are understandably extremely wary of hiring individuals convicted of such a serious financial crime, especially for positions involving trust, financial responsibility, cash handling, or access to sensitive data. Many professional licenses (e.g., in finance, accounting, law, real estate, insurance) would almost certainly be denied or revoked by Minnesota state licensing boards, effectively barring individuals from entire career fields. This often leads to chronic unemployment or restriction to low-wage jobs.

Crippling Financial Repercussions and Inability to Access Financial Services

The financial consequences of a counterfeiting conviction are multifaceted and severe. Beyond the potential for massive court-ordered fines (up to $100,000) and possible restitution, the conviction itself can destroy an individual’s creditworthiness and financial reputation. Obtaining loans, mortgages, credit cards, or even basic banking services from institutions in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or elsewhere can become virtually impossible. This financial ostracization makes it incredibly difficult to secure housing, purchase a vehicle, invest in education, or achieve any measure of long-term financial stability.

Loss of Fundamental Civil Rights and Severe Immigration Consequences

A felony counterfeiting conviction in Minnesota results in the automatic loss of several fundamental civil rights. These include the right to vote until the full sentence (including any probation or parole) is completed, the right to serve on a jury, and, crucially, a lifetime prohibition under both state and federal law on possessing firearms or ammunition. For non-U.S. citizens residing in the Twin Cities, a counterfeiting conviction is almost certain to be considered an aggravated felony and a crime involving moral turpitude, leading to severe immigration consequences, including mandatory deportation, denial of re-entry to the United States, and ineligibility for asylum, lawful permanent residence, or U.S. citizenship.

The Absolute Necessity of Experienced Legal Counsel in Minnesota Counterfeiting Currency Cases

When an individual is confronted with the grave allegations of counterfeiting currency under Minnesota Statute § 609.632, the decision to secure highly experienced and dedicated legal representation is not merely advisable—it is an absolute necessity. Counterfeiting charges are among the most serious financial crimes, carrying the potential for decades of imprisonment and crippling fines. The legal and factual complexities involved, often encompassing sophisticated forensic evidence, intricate financial trails, and challenging questions of intent, demand a defense attorney with profound knowledge of Minnesota’s counterfeiting laws and substantial experience navigating the federal and state court systems within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County.

The role of skilled legal counsel in a counterfeiting case is to provide a formidable defense against the power of the state. This involves a meticulous deconstruction of the prosecution’s evidence, the assertion of all constitutional rights and protections, the development of strategic defenses, and unwavering advocacy at every stage of the proceedings. Given the life-altering stakes, anything less than a comprehensive and aggressive defense can have catastrophic consequences.

Mastering the Complexities of Minnesota’s Counterfeiting Statute and Federal Overlap

Minnesota Statute § 609.632 is a detailed law with specific elements for manufacturing, possessing tools, and uttering counterfeit U.S. currency or obligations. An attorney with a deep understanding of these provisions can identify critical distinctions and potential vulnerabilities in the state’s case. Furthermore, because counterfeiting is also a primary focus of federal law enforcement (e.g., the U.S. Secret Service), there is often an overlap or potential for federal prosecution. Counsel experienced in handling serious felony financial crimes in both state and potentially federal courts in the Twin Cities can provide comprehensive advice and representation, understanding the interplay between different jurisdictions and investigative agencies.

Strategically Attacking the Core Elements: “Intent to Defraud” and “Reason to Know”

The subjective elements of “intent to defraud” (required for all counterfeiting offenses under § 609.632) and “having reason to know” an item is counterfeit (for uttering offenses under Subd. 3) are often the most critical battlegrounds in these cases. A proficient defense attorney will meticulously analyze the evidence to challenge the prosecution’s ability to prove these mental states beyond a reasonable doubt. This may involve demonstrating a lack of deceptive purpose, showing the accused was an unwitting possessor, or arguing that the circumstances did not reasonably indicate the currency was fake. Successfully negating these elements in a Minneapolis or St. Paul courtroom can lead to an acquittal or reduced charges.

Scrutinizing Sophisticated Evidence and Investigative Techniques

Counterfeiting investigations often involve sophisticated techniques, including forensic analysis of currency and printing materials, examination of computers and digital devices, surveillance, and informant testimony. An experienced criminal defense attorney will have the capability to critically evaluate this evidence, understand its scientific basis (or lack thereof), and challenge its admissibility or reliability. This may involve consulting with defense forensic experts to counter the prosecution’s experts and exposing flaws in the investigative process conducted by state or federal authorities in Hennepin, Ramsey, or other Minnesota counties.

Protecting Constitutional Rights and Negotiating from a Position of Strength

Throughout a counterfeiting investigation and prosecution, the accused has vital constitutional rights, including protection against illegal searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, and the right to effective assistance of counsel. Knowledgeable legal representation ensures these rights are vigorously defended from the outset. While preparing a robust trial defense, an attorney will also explore all viable avenues for a favorable resolution, which might include negotiating with prosecutors from a position of strength. This could involve seeking a dismissal, a plea to a significantly lesser offense, or an agreement that minimizes the severe penalties and long-term consequences, always with the client’s informed consent and best interests as the paramount concern in any Twin Cities court.