Fake US Treasury Bond Arrests

[NAVigator]

Here is a HUGE US paper bond fraud that was luckily thwarted;
Record $6 Trillion of Fake U.S. Bonds Seized - Bloomberg

Phony U.S. securities have been seized in Italy before and there were at least three cases in 2009. Italian police seized phony U.S. Treasury bonds with a face value of $116 billion in August of 2009 and $134 billion of similar securities in June of that year.

Perhaps that is why TD is striving to remove the paper bonds.

Jerry

[neurosphere]

The U.S. embassy in Rome has examined the securities dated 1934, which had a nominal value of $1 billion apiece, they said in the statement.

one billion dollars for each bond, dated 1934? Where would a forger go to collect on that?

NS

[chaz]

Diversify.

[Default User BR]

Diversify.

Make sure you get a variety of fake bonds?


Brian

[downshiftme]

If the value of a single fake bond was $1 Billion, how did they expect to get any payout from the fraud? It's not like you can take that to a bank and ask to cash it in. This makes about as much sense as the guy who tried to use a $1 Million dollar bill at Walmart.

[saied45]

does this mean now that the value of bonds will go up?

[Epsilon Delta]

Aren't these as phony as $3 bills? As far as I can tell:
1) The US never issued $1,000,000,000 bearer bonds. $10,000 is the largest face value.
2) All US bearer bonds have matured.

So if these forgeries present any risk to financial institutions we have much worse problems, namely that financial institutions are being run by morons.

[xerty24]

... we have much worse problems, namely that financial institutions are being run by morons.

And in other recent news...

[livesoft]

The fake bonds were not meant to be cashed in. They were meant to be sold to the Greater Fool.

[xerty24]

The fake bonds were not meant to be cashed in. They were meant to be sold to the Greater Fool.

Which is absolutely completely different than all those non-fake little green pieces of paper .

[Grt2bOutdoors]

The fake bonds were not meant to be cashed in. They were meant to be sold to the Greater Fool.

Since these were found in the European Union, one can infer that Europeans are fools.

[baw703916]

A little bit of googling finds that the national debt in 1934 was only $27 billion, an increase of $5 billion over the previous year. You figure that at most $10-$12 billion in Treasury bonds were issued in 1934. And 10% of it was in the form of a single piece of paper, which didn't turn up until recently...?

[Call_Me_Op]

The fake bonds were not meant to be cashed in. They were meant to be sold to the Greater Fool.

That would be quite a fool.

[NAVigator]

A little bit of googling finds that the national debt in 1934 was only $27 billion, an increase of $5 billion over the previous year. You figure that at most $10-$12 billion in Treasury bonds were issued in 1934. And 10% of it was in the form of a single piece of paper, which didn't turn up until recently...?

It seems these counterfeiters have more guts than brains. It's a good thing, because they got caught. I wonder how many with less ambition are wealthy and free.

Jerry

[Default User BR]

It seems these counterfeiters have more guts than brains.

Like the guy who tried to pass a million-dollar bill at Walmart. Even if the cashier was dumb enough to accept it as real, where would the store get $999,000+ in change?


Brian

[magician]

Diversify.

Make sure you get a variety of fake bonds?

Touché!

[magician]

The fake bonds were not meant to be cashed in. They were meant to be sold to the Greater Fool.

Since these were found in the European Union, one can infer that Europeans are fools.

You can infer that someone expected to find fools amongst Europeans.

[magician]

It seems these counterfeiters have more guts than brains.

Like the guy who tried to pass a million-dollar bill at Walmart. Even if the cashier was dumb enough to accept it as real, where would the store get $999,000+ in change?

Store credit.

(About 35 years ago I bought a bottle of Gatorade at a local supermarket at about midnight. All I had was a $100 bill, and the store policy was that they didn't accept anything larger than a $20 after 10:00PM for payment. However, the cashier came up with a solution: she could give me 5 $20s in exchange for the $100, then accept a $20 for the Gatorade. You might think that she was being clever, but the fact is that she honestly thought that giving me change for the $100, then accepting a $20 for the Gatorade was a materially different transaction than accepting the $100 for the Gatorade.)

[nisiprius]

(About 35 years ago I bought a bottle of Gatorade at a local supermarket at about midnight. All I had was a $100 bill, and the store policy was that they didn't accept anything larger than a $20 after 10:00PM for payment. However, the cashier came up with a solution: she could give me 5 $20s in exchange for the $100, then accept a $20 for the Gatorade. You might think that she was being clever, but the fact is that she honestly thought that giving me change for the $100, then accepting a $20 for the Gatorade was a materially different transaction than accepting the $100 for the Gatorade.)

Whoa! How big a bottle of Gatorade was that?

[magician]

Whoa! How big a bottle of Gatorade was that?

LOL!

It was about $1.50.

Frankly, it was sad. I tried to tell her that it's the same thing ("You end up with my $100 bill, I end up with Gatorade and change.") but she was adamant: making change for a $100 is different from accepting the $100 for payment.

As the $100 wasn't counterfeit (as far as I know), all was well, but it was just sad to imagine the thought (?) process.

[ftobin]

Frankly, it was sad. I tried to tell her that it's the same thing ("You end up with my $100 bill, I end up with Gatorade and change.") but she was adamant: making change for a $100 is different from accepting the $100 for payment.

While the end result is the largely the same, she might have been confused how to manage the register to perform your simple 2-step workaround in one step without messing up paperwork (working a shift at midnight does not help cognitive function!). Maybe the register wouldn't have allowed a 100-bill given as payment, but clearly didn't care about a bill swap (I have no idea about register capabilities 35 years ago).

I wonder if the same transaction would work today, without some sort of alert (either during- or post-transaction register checks -- "Where did this $100 bill come from?").

[magician]

Frankly, it was sad. I tried to tell her that it's the same thing ("You end up with my $100 bill, I end up with Gatorade and change.") but she was adamant: making change for a $100 is different from accepting the $100 for payment.

While the end result is the largely the same, she might have been confused how to manage the register to perform your simple 2-step workaround in one step without messing up paperwork (working a shift at midnight does not help cognitive function!). Maybe the register wouldn't have allowed a 100-bill given as payment, but clearly didn't care about a bill swap (I have no idea about register capabilities 35 years ago).

To be clear, it wasn't my two-step workaround; it was hers, and it wasn't a workaround: it was a different (and perfectly OK) transaction. When she told me that she wasn't allowed to accept a $100 bill after 10:00PM, I would have been happy to put the Gatorade back on the shelf and leave. She came up with the idea of changing the bill, then ringing up the transaction, and her manner clearly betrayed that fact that she saw this as fundamentally different from accepting the $100 for payment. There was no technological hurdle here: it was essentially a manual register. It was the-rules-say-don't-take-a-large-bill-for-payment-but-they-don't-say-don't-make-change-for-it-and-that's-different.

[Kashi]

To be clear, it wasn't my two-step workaround; it was hers, and it wasn't a workaround: it was a different (and perfectly OK) transaction. When she told me that she wasn't allowed to accept a $100 bill after 10:00PM, I would have been happy to put the Gatorade back on the shelf and leave. She came up with the idea of changing the bill, then ringing up the transaction, and her manner clearly betrayed that fact that she saw this as fundamentally different from accepting the $100 for payment. There was no technological hurdle here: it was essentially a manual register. It was the-rules-say-don't-take-a-large-bill-for-payment-but-they-don't-say-don't-make-change-for-it-and-that's-different.

It sounds to me like she is sharp, rather than dull. The store policy is the weak point in the series of events, not the cashier's logic or actions...imo.