Whoever […] defaces, disfigures, […], or does any other thing to any bank […] note […] with intent to render such […] unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Well but see the intent isn’t to render it unfit to be reissued, the whole point is that you want it to stay in circulation so as many people as possible see the additional message.
To be fair, there’s a whole lot of difference between defacing a banknote vs. rendering it unfit for issue.
In any case, cause of how often it changes hands, and how little supervision its under, it’d be very difficult to actually identify who defaced a specific note - especially if you’ve git a whole bunch of people doing it to a whole bunch of notes
Essentially, the argument just boils down to the fact that you’re… not making the bill unusable. As long as the denomination is still visible and not altered to another number, and it’s possible to see anti-fraud measures like the green seal well enough, you’re not rendering it unfit for circulation.
There is the problem of ATMs sometimes rejecting stamped bills (or accepting them but having the bank send them back to the Fed to be replaced with new, clean ones) but afaik it’s rare and not too likely as long as you don’t cover the denomination.
Most businesses don’t reject stamped bills as they have no reason to expect additional markings would mean a bill is actually NOT real, and most people won’t decide to just never spend it again because it has a stamp.
As long as you don’t promote/advertise a business, or change the actual denomination of the bill, you’re fine.
with intent to render such […] unfit to be reissued
This isn’t trying to take it out of circulation tho, so that probably wouldn’t apply. They’d have to make an argument that effectively goes against the first amendment to say you can’t write on currency you plan to spend.
A quick internet search reveals:
18 U.S. Code § 333
So personally I wouldn’t bet on this not being illegal. On the other hand, freedom of opinion might save your butt. But what do I know about US law?
Well but see the intent isn’t to render it unfit to be reissued, the whole point is that you want it to stay in circulation so as many people as possible see the additional message.
Good point!
This is legalese. The
“with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued”
probably relates only to the
“or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt”
part, and not the whole
“Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together”
You may want to consider becoming a lawyer dawg
The MAGoos have been stamping ‘Donald Trump Lives Here’ on US currency for years.
They are supposed to do it on bills that show the White House, but they’ve also put in on $5 bills that show the Lincoln Memorial
Quick, which one shows a graveyard?
It’s not my fault the staff doesn’t trust you with anything valuable.
I don’t think you understand the Supreme Court and Justice department in the US. It’s only illegal for Democrats.
It would be almost impossible to pin it on anyone.
To be fair, there’s a whole lot of difference between defacing a banknote vs. rendering it unfit for issue.
In any case, cause of how often it changes hands, and how little supervision its under, it’d be very difficult to actually identify who defaced a specific note - especially if you’ve git a whole bunch of people doing it to a whole bunch of notes
As someone else already pointed out, the “with intent to render such […] unfit to be reissued” part is key here.
The Stamp Stampede has a good resource on this.
Essentially, the argument just boils down to the fact that you’re… not making the bill unusable. As long as the denomination is still visible and not altered to another number, and it’s possible to see anti-fraud measures like the green seal well enough, you’re not rendering it unfit for circulation.
There is the problem of ATMs sometimes rejecting stamped bills (or accepting them but having the bank send them back to the Fed to be replaced with new, clean ones) but afaik it’s rare and not too likely as long as you don’t cover the denomination.
Most businesses don’t reject stamped bills as they have no reason to expect additional markings would mean a bill is actually NOT real, and most people won’t decide to just never spend it again because it has a stamp.
As long as you don’t promote/advertise a business, or change the actual denomination of the bill, you’re fine.
They would first have to prove that you were the one who did it. Good luck with that.
This isn’t trying to take it out of circulation tho, so that probably wouldn’t apply. They’d have to make an argument that effectively goes against the first amendment to say you can’t write on currency you plan to spend.
“rendering unfit” is when you glue $20 corners to a $10 to pass it off as a 20.
It almost certainly would… if you have the money to win a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds, which is far from cheap.
there so much defaced money already out there
you’d have to really make a big scene where it makes a lot of noise to even stand out
Arguably relevant precedent:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/
Nah, totally legal. As long as you make sure you don’t draw over anything renders it unfit for reissue
deleted by creator