Counterfeiting Defense in Manassas

Why Knowledge Matters in a Counterfeit-Currency Case

Possessing or passing an item that turns out to be counterfeit does not by itself establish every element of a Virginia counterfeiting offense.

For passing counterfeit money under §18.2-170, the Commonwealth must establish the knowledge required by the statute.

The Supreme Court of Virginia addressed that issue in Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth. The court recognized that passing a counterfeit note can occur innocently and that guilty knowledge must be established rather than assumed simply because the note was used.

Evidence relevant to knowledge may include:

• How the accused obtained the item
• Statements attributed to the accused
• The number or condition of counterfeit items
• Prior or surrounding transactions
• Communications with other people allegedly involved
• Evidence suggesting efforts to conceal or dispose of the items

Knowledge is often established through circumstantial evidence, which makes the surrounding facts important.

Federal Counterfeit Currency Charges

Federal law separately addresses counterfeit obligations and securities of the United States.

Under 18 U.S.C. §471, a person who, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters a qualifying U.S. obligation or security can face up to 20 years in federal prison.

Other federal statutes apply to different conduct.

Section 472 addresses passing, publishing, selling, possessing, or concealing counterfeit U.S. obligations or securities when the required intent to defraud is present. It also carries a potential prison term of up to 20 years.

Section 473 addresses buying, selling, exchanging, transferring, receiving, or delivering counterfeit obligations with the required intent that they be used as genuine.

The federal statute charged matters because manufacturing, possession, passing, and dealing are not interchangeable allegations.

Counterfeit Goods Are a Different Federal Offense

Counterfeit merchandise is governed by a different federal framework from counterfeit currency.

Under 18 U.S.C. §2320, federal prosecutors may pursue allegations involving intentional trafficking in goods or services while knowingly using a counterfeit mark, along with other conduct covered by the statute.

For a standard first offense under the general provision, an individual can face up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $2 million. A second or subsequent qualifying offense can expose an individual to up to 20 years and a fine of up to $5 million.

The statute contains additional provisions for particular categories of counterfeit goods and circumstances, so the charging document must be reviewed before assessing potential penalties.

Counterfeit-goods allegations can therefore differ significantly from both a Virginia counterfeit-currency prosecution and a federal currency case.

Where a Manassas Counterfeiting Case May Proceed

The court depends on whether the government is pursuing state or federal charges and on the procedural stage of the case.

For Virginia felony allegations in Prince William County, the case may begin in Prince William General District Court for proceedings that can include a preliminary hearing. Felony trials are conducted in Circuit Court if the charge proceeds there through certification or indictment. Other procedural paths, including direct indictment, can also affect where a case begins.

Federal allegations arising in Prince William County fall within the Alexandria Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

State and federal cases involve different charging procedures, discovery rules, motion practice, sentencing systems, and deadlines.

Dischley Law, PLLC represents clients in both Virginia and federal criminal matters. When federal jurisdiction is involved, we first identify the exact statute charged, investigative agency, procedural posture, and deadlines before developing a defense plan.

How We Review a Counterfeiting Investigation

An investigation may begin before anyone is formally charged. Federal or state investigators may seek records, conduct interviews, execute searches, or issue subpoenas.

Our initial review can include:

• Charging documents and warrants
• Subpoenas and investigator correspondence
• Currency, checks, goods, or other physical items
• Electronic communications
• Financial and business records
• Search and seizure issues
• Statements attributed to the accused
• Evidence about ownership, possession, knowledge, and intent

When an investigator requests a voluntary interview, legal advice before answering substantive questions can help you understand the request and its possible consequences.

A subpoena, warrant, or court order raises different obligations and should not be ignored. Counsel can review what the legal process requires and whether issues exist regarding how evidence was obtained.

Financial-Crime Experience in State & Federal Court

David J. Dischley and Patrick T. O'Brien are former prosecutors. Shalev Ben-Avraham previously served as a Senior Assistant Public Defender.

The firm's background also includes U.S. Marine Corps service, intelligence-community work, and experience involving financial crimes and money laundering. Our attorneys bring more than 30 years of combined criminal defense experience to cases involving serious state and federal allegations.

That experience does not predetermine the outcome of any counterfeiting case. Our approach begins with the statute, the admissible evidence, the client's circumstances, and the government's ability to prove the charge.

Discuss the Allegation in a Confidential Consultation

Early legal guidance can clarify the accusation, the court involved, and the decisions immediately ahead. We offer free and confidential consultations to individuals and businesses facing counterfeiting or related financial-crime allegations.

We examine complicated records, identify disputed issues, and prepare for proceedings in Virginia or federal court. Throughout the process, we tailor our strategy to your circumstances, legal needs, and goals.