Possible Responses To Counterfeiters: Plastic Money And Bills That Talk

WASHINGTON — Plastic money, bills with built-in magnifying glasses, and even audible money are among technologies the government could use to "stay a step or two ahead of counterfeiters," a National Academies committee said Monday.

But something will have to be done soon, said the committee, because within the next 10 years counterfeiters will have won the "battle of the printed image."

Already, major counterfeiters can duplicate most U.S. bills so accurately that sophisticated forensic analysis is required to distinguish them from the real McCoy.

An estimated 30 of every 1 million $100 bills in circulation worldwide are counterfeit, the committee noted.

Last year, the government formally charged several individuals in a "supernote" counterfeiting ring and linked one of them to the government of North Korea.

The ring's fake $100 bills were printed on paper that has the same fiber content as U.S. bank notes and used sophisticated inks that change color according to the angle at which they are viewed, according to University of Georgia counterfeiting expert Stephen Mihm.

Even less sophisticated counterfeiting is getting easier, the National Academies committee said in its report.

Advances in digital imaging and printing mean that within a decade even "low-skill printers will be able to duplicate almost any two-dimensional image," the panel's experts said.

Before that happens, the government's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which prints U.S. bank notes, should start now exploring new steps to frustrate counterfeiters, the panel said.

They include:

— Plastic bills. Since 1996, when Australia converted its currency to polymer-based "substrates," many other countries have followed suit. The committee said that if the United States began to use plastic for $1, $2 and $5 bills, the practice of bleaching low-denomination currency and printing larger notes on the paper would frustrated.

A drawback would be the loss of the "tactile familiarity" of U.S. currency, which experts told the committee is the main way people judge its authenticity. In fact, the first $100 "supernote" counterfeit was spotted by a cash handler who said it "didn't feel right."

— Money with a small Fresnel lens — the flat magnifying glass sold in novelty stores — incorporated into the paper. By curling the bill, a user could read extremely small "microprinting" and other tiny features that cheap printing equipment cannot duplicate.

— "Windows" of different sizes could be cut into currency, so that a large window on a $1 bill would be out of place on a falsely reprinted $100 note that should have a small window.

— New versions of color-shifting inks, plus holographic strips and embedded optics that produce distinctive light reflections.

In the longer term, the panel said possible anti-counterfeiting measures could include:

— Genetically engineered cotton to produce fibers that show highly visible color shifts.

— Embedded electronic sensors that emit a visible or audible response. For example, they might respond to human breath with an authenticity signal.

"As counterfeiting technology continues to improve, the committee foresees an increased interest by cash handlers in using simple devices in authenticating bank notes," the report states.

Whatever approach is taken, the government should start investing now in the research and development necessary to produce "game-changing technologies" in its eternal war with counterfeiters, the panel said.

But the victory may be short-lived.

"It's almost inevitable that sophisticated counterfeiters will eventually lay their hands on whatever techniques they have to have," Georgia's Mihm said in a telephone interview.

On the Web: National Research Council: www.nationalacademies.org/nrc