Plastic currency offers additional deterrents to PC counterfeiting

Protection Points

A publication of Banknote Corporation of America, Inc.

Issue 6, 2002

For those of us who don't travel "down under," we may not be aware that Australia converted its entire banknote currency to plastic in 1996, mostly due to unrelenting counterfeiting.

Benefits to the change have been meaningful. For instance, Australia reports that their new currency, even in a sometimes hostile climate, lasts an average circulation life of 40 months, versus six months for their previous paper version. (For the U.S. a $5 bill reportedly lasts 24 months, and the $20 bill lasts 48 months.)

Seizing an opportunity, the Australian government today licenses its plastic banknote currency technology to at least fifteen governments, including Mexico, Brazil, and Taiwan. The Australian plastic, nonporous, extra thin polymer sheath resists corrosive combinations of water, sweat, tearing, oil, and even bacteria. However, the primary feature for governments as a deterrent to counterfeiting is its transparent window embedded in the banknote—that makes it impossible to copy on an inkjet printer.

As reported in previous issues and according to reports from the U.S. Secret Service, there was an increase in U.S. counterfeiting of over 18% from 2000 to 2001, from $39.7 million to $47.5 million, with over 39% created on computers (up from a half percent from computers in 1995).

According to the New York Times, the U.S. has $608 billion circulating in currency worldwide, and began incorporating plastic threads into its newly designed currency as early as 1996. But for Crane & Company of Dalton, Mass., this may represent a radical shift in its sole supplier position to the U.S. According to Lansing E.Crane, CEO, "the selling point of plastic is its durability, and the marketplace will determine whether plastic notes stand the test of time." Depending on who you talk to, plastic currency can benefit or create a problem for ATM's and vending machines.

Our question is simple: if plastic currency with definitive features can provide deterrents for counterfeiting of paper currency, why not use cost-effective features like intaglio or microperfing for tens of millions of counterfeit and fraudulent coupons currently reimbursed by major consumer companies?

The central issue that ultimately affects everyone's safety requires consumer goods companies to decide that they will no longer tolerate reimbursement of fraudulent and counterfeit coupons. Costeffective deterrents are available. In other words, the only acceptable policy is "zero tolerance."

***

“The Australian plastic, nonporous, extra thin polymer sheath resists corrosive combinations of water, sweat, tearing, oil, and even bacteria. However, the primary feature for governments as a deterrent to counterfeiting is its transparent window embedded in the banknote — that makes it impossible to copy on an inkjet printer.”

***

“... if plastic currency with definitive features can provide deterrents for counterfeiting of paper currency, why not use cost-effective features like intaglio or microperfing ...?"