Counterfeiting in Canada (Uniform Crime Reporting, or UCR, Code 3420) covers a wide range of activities involving fake or altered money, including making it, possessing it, using it, or advertising and dealing in it. Under Part XII of the Criminal Code, these offences are treated as especially serious because they attack the integrity of Canada’s monetary system and public confidence in currency. Most core counterfeiting offences are straight indictable offences, with maximum penalties up to 14 years in prison. This page focuses on counterfeiting laws Canada in the specific context of section 460 of the Criminal Code, which targets advertising and dealing in counterfeit money or counterfeit “tokens of value.”
The Legal Definition
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 460
(1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) by an advertisement or any other writing, offers to sell, procure or dispose of counterfeit money or counterfeit tokens of value or to give information with respect to the manner in which or the means by which counterfeit money or counterfeit tokens of value may be sold, procured or disposed of, or
(b) purchases, obtains, negotiates or otherwise deals with counterfeit tokens of value, or offers to negotiate with a view to purchasing or obtaining them.
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) in respect of genuine coin or genuine paper money that has no value as money unless, at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed, he knew that the coin or paper money had no value as money and he had a fraudulent intent in his dealings with or with respect to the coin or paper money.
In plain English, section 460 makes it a crime to promote, advertise, or otherwise offer to sell, obtain, or dispose of counterfeit money or counterfeit tokens of value, and to trade in counterfeit tokens of value themselves. The law is not limited to physical transactions; it captures offers made “by an advertisement or any other writing,” which today includes online posts, emails, and other electronic communications. Even if no fake bills change hands, simply offering to arrange a deal in counterfeit money through written communication can be enough to trigger liability.
The section also deals with “counterfeit tokens of value,” a term defined elsewhere in Part XII to include things like counterfeit excise stamps or postage stamps, and even genuine coins or paper money that no longer have legal value as money. Subsection 460(2) adds an important safeguard: a person cannot be convicted for dealing with genuine but valueless currency (for example, old, demonetized notes) unless the Crown proves they knew the money had no legal value and were acting with a fraudulent intent. This reflects the broader structure of Part XII of the Criminal Code, which carefully distinguishes innocent collecting or historical interest from fraudulent counterfeiting activity.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- UCR Code: 3420 (Counterfeiting Currency)
- Offence section: Criminal Code, s. 460 (advertising and dealing in counterfeit money/tokens of value)
- Classification: Hybrid offence (can proceed summarily or by indictment)
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None specified
- Maximum penalty (indictable): Up to 5 years’ imprisonment
- Maximum penalty (summary conviction): Set by general summary limits in the Criminal Code (typically up to 2 years less a day in jail, and/or a fine)
- Related core counterfeiting offences (for context):
- Making or beginning to make counterfeit money (s. 449) – up to 14 years
- Possession of counterfeit money (s. 450) – up to 14 years
- Uttering (using/passing) counterfeit money (s. 452) – up to 14 years
- Instruments for counterfeiting (s. 458) – up to 14 years
Section 460 is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown can choose to prosecute either by indictment or by summary conviction. This choice typically reflects the seriousness of the conduct, the scale of the activity, whether organized crime is involved, and the accused’s prior record. For more serious or organized advertising/trafficking schemes (for example, repeated online advertising of counterfeit currency to a large audience), the Crown will be more likely to proceed by indictment, exposing the accused to the five‑year maximum and the more formal indictment procedures.
Unlike some other serious financial crimes, there is no mandatory minimum sentence for this counterfeiting offence. Judges retain full discretion to impose a sentence that can range from an absolute or conditional discharge (in rare, exceptionally minor cases) to a multi‑year term of imprisonment for more serious or sophisticated schemes. In sentencing under section 460, courts consider the broader context of counterfeiting laws Canada: Parliament has designated counterfeiting as an “especially serious offence” that threatens Canada’s political and economic stability. Even where no actual loss has yet occurred, the courts often emphasize the need for denunciation and general deterrence because advertising and trafficking in counterfeit money facilitates the broader counterfeiting ecosystem.
Sentences will be influenced by factors such as the volume of counterfeit money or tokens involved, the level of organization, whether the accused profited, links to organized crime, and whether the individual played a central role (for example, large‑scale online seller) or a more peripheral one (for example, sharing information casually in writing about how to obtain counterfeit money). While a first‑time offender involved in a limited, unsophisticated incident may receive a community‑based sentence, repeat offenders or those engaged in large, deliberate schemes can and do receive custodial sentences approaching the indictable maximum.
Common Defenses
-
Lack of knowledge that the money or tokens were counterfeit or valueless
A recurring element across Part XII is that the Crown must usually prove the accused knew the nature of what they were dealing with. For section 460(1)(b) (dealing in counterfeit tokens of value), the person must know they are dealing with “counterfeit tokens of value.” If an accused can raise a reasonable doubt that they honestly believed the items were genuine (for example, they thought they were real collectible stamps or legitimate promotional vouchers), this can defeat the mens rea (mental element) of the offence. Similarly, under subsection 460(2), a person cannot be convicted for dealing in genuine but valueless coins or notes unless the Crown proves that, at the time, the accused knew the currency had no value as money and acted with fraudulent intent. Evidence such as expert reports, prior warnings, communications where the accused acknowledges the counterfeit nature, or the pricing and context of the transaction, all go to whether knowledge can be inferred. -
Lack of intent to distribute or use counterfeit currency fraudulently
While section 460 focuses on advertising and dealing, the broader counterfeiting framework is fundamentally concerned with fraudulent use and circulation of fake or altered money. If the defence can show that any dealings were purely for non‑fraudulent purposes (for example, a legitimate academic study of counterfeit techniques, a museum or theatre acquisition clearly labelled as non‑genuine, or controlled use of replicas in film production under proper authorization), a court may find there was no fraudulent intent to facilitate circulation as money. Subsection 460(2) expressly requires fraudulent intent for dealings in genuine, valueless currency; courts read this in harmony with the general requirement across Part XII that the conduct be “without lawful justification or excuse.” Where the evidence supports an innocent, good‑faith purpose and reasonable steps were taken to avoid misuse, this can form part of a viable defence. -
Lawful justification or excuse
Many counterfeiting provisions, including related offences in Part XII, explicitly state that liability arises only where conduct is “without lawful justification or excuse.” Although section 460 does not repeat this wording verbatim in each clause, it operates within that same statutory context. Lawful justification or excuse may apply where someone is acting under proper legal authority or in a role implicitly authorized by law. Examples can include police officers or undercover agents who advertise or negotiate in counterfeit money as part of a controlled operation, or designated examiners and financial institution staff who handle counterfeit items strictly for detection and training purposes. In such cases, the defence would rely on evidence of official authorization, institutional policy, or statutory mandates that make the activity lawful despite appearing to fall within the literal wording of section 460.
Real-World Example
Imagine someone prints fake $20 bills and tries to use them at a local store, hoping to pass them off as real currency. At first glance, this conduct most directly engages the offences of making counterfeit money (s. 449) and uttering counterfeit money (s. 452). However, section 460 can also become relevant where there is any written offering or negotiation connected to these fake bills. If the same person then posts on a social media platform, “I can hook you up with near‑perfect twenties, message me for details,” they may now be committing a section 460 offence. That post is an “advertisement or any other writing” offering to sell or procure counterfeit money. Even if no one responds and no further transaction occurs, the offending conduct is complete: the law does not require that the counterfeit bills actually change hands or be successfully used.
From a policing standpoint, officers could use the post as a basis to open an investigation, obtain warrants, and potentially seize printing equipment and counterfeit notes under the seizure provisions in Part XII. Expert examiners designated by the Minister of Public Safety can then certify whether the seized bills are counterfeit, using the streamlined certificate procedure in section 461. In court, the Crown would frame the case not only as fraudulent use of fake currency (uttering) but also as an attempt to expand counterfeit circulation by advertising and dealing, which aggravates the risk to the public and the monetary system.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
A conviction under section 460 for counterfeiting‑related conduct is treated as a criminal record for an indictable (or hybrid) offence. Under current federal policy, eligibility for a record suspension (formerly known as a pardon) for indictable offences typically begins 5 years after completion of the entire sentence. “Completion” includes any jail time, probation, and payment of fines or restitution orders. If the Crown proceeds summarily, a shorter statutory waiting period may apply, but as a practical rule of thumb for serious counterfeiting‑linked conduct, individuals should expect at least a five‑year wait. A record suspension is not automatic: the Parole Board of Canada assesses the nature of the offence, the applicant’s behaviour since conviction, and evidence of rehabilitation. Because counterfeiting strikes at the integrity of Canada’s financial system, applicants should be prepared to demonstrate a clear, sustained break from criminal activity and any association with counterfeit currency or other financial crimes.
Related Violations
- Possession of Counterfeit Money (Criminal Code, s. 450)
- Making Counterfeit Money (Criminal Code, s. 449)
- Uttering Counterfeit Money (Criminal Code, s. 452)
Together, these offences form a tightly integrated scheme under Part XII of the Criminal Code. Understanding section 460 in the broader context of counterfeiting laws Canada helps explain why even “just advertising” or negotiating in counterfeit money is treated as a serious crime: it is one critical link in the chain that takes fake currency from production to real‑world economic harm.