[PASSED] Anti-Counterfeiting Pact

[Balenderg]

"I'm still of the opinion that a formal definition of the crime at hand, i.e. counterfeiting, should be formally and specifically defined." Sia states while adjusting her papers on her desk. "I prefer the resolutions I support to be as airtight and specific as possible."

"Ambassador, the term counterfeiting has a very specific use in most, possibly all, vernacular. Much like "murder" directly implies an unlawful killing, counterfeiting implies devious or unlawful duplication. Thus why the term "duplicate" isn't used. I feel that this term obviates the need for a definition, as dictionary-abusing delegations will simply distort a different term to avoid compliance if so inclined. If you can provide an example of any confusion, ambassador, I'll happily address it."

"She does have a point. Counterfeiting includes many things, such as counterfeiting money, art, bonds, artifacts, gems, and other valuable items. This is one of the reasons my draft failed, because it only tackled money counterfeiting, and I would hate to see another good attempt at a Counterfeiting draft thrown away." Says Boris Vaishvalkov, the head Foreign Relations And Affairs minister of Balenderg.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"She does have a point. Counterfeiting includes many things, such as counterfeiting money, art, bonds, artifacts, gems, and other valuable items. This is one of the reasons my draft failed, because it only tackled money counterfeiting, and I would hate to see another good attempt at a Counterfeiting draft thrown away." Says Boris Vaishvalkov, the head Foreign Relations And Affairs minister of Balenderg.

As would I, Mr. Vaishvalkov; however, if this resolution fails, it won't be because it doesn't specify what kind of counterfeiting it is targeting. If you'll draw your attention to the text of the draft, you'll note it is specifically targeted at counterfeit currency (note also the use of the word "tender" therein). Your own draft failed for reasons other than failing to target the entire universe of forgeable goods and works, sir. Indeed, I totally disagree with the notion that the resolution should target any other kind of counterfeiting, both because such forgeries are far less dire for world economic health and because a resolution that bites off more than it can chew almost invariably fails.

[Balenderg]

"She does have a point. Counterfeiting includes many things, such as counterfeiting money, art, bonds, artifacts, gems, and other valuable items. This is one of the reasons my draft failed, because it only tackled money counterfeiting, and I would hate to see another good attempt at a Counterfeiting draft thrown away." Says Boris Vaishvalkov, the head Foreign Relations And Affairs minister of Balenderg.

As would I, Mr. Vaishvalkov; however, if this resolution fails, it won't be because it doesn't specify what kind of counterfeiting it is targeting. If you'll draw your attention to the text of the draft, you'll note it is specifically targeted at counterfeit currency (note also the use of the word "tender" therein). Your own draft failed for reasons other than failing to target the entire universe of forgeable goods and works, sir. Indeed, I totally disagree with the notion that the resolution should target any other kind of counterfeiting, both because such forgeries are far less dire for world economic health and because a resolution that bites off more than it can chew almost invariably fails.

"I did not say it was the only reason my draft failed. I know the other reasons it failed, because it was poorly written and it approached the issue from the wrong angle. I honestly believe that the Balendergian votes, in and out of parliament, would come up as a "yes" when this law is voted for, regardless of whether or not the law will target other things or just continue to target the counterfeit of legal tender. And unfortunately the WA usually has flip-flop votes, so whenever a law gets enacted one of the next three resolution repeals it. This happens a lot, and there are a few resolutions that have bit off more than they could chew and still made it through, such as WA Resolution #249."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, the term counterfeiting has a very specific use in most, possibly all, vernacular. Much like "murder" directly implies an unlawful killing, counterfeiting implies devious or unlawful duplication. Thus why the term "duplicate" isn't used. I feel that this term obviates the need for a definition, as dictionary-abusing delegations will simply distort a different term to avoid compliance if so inclined. If you can provide an example of any confusion, ambassador, I'll happily address it."

"She does have a point. Counterfeiting includes many things, such as counterfeiting money, art, bonds, artifacts, gems, and other valuable items. This is one of the reasons my draft failed, because it only tackled money counterfeiting, and I would hate to see another good attempt at a Counterfeiting draft thrown away." Says Boris Vaishvalkov, the head Foreign Relations And Affairs minister of Balenderg.

"Money counterfeiting is an active attempt to defraud a national government of the tender it recognizes. Product counterfeiting approaches the area of foreign copyright law, which is covered, I believe, by an existing resolution, and also delves into a quagmire of conflicting manufacturing, advertising, and export shenanigans that no sane author will subject themselves to."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I like this proposal, but it really seems like more of an International Security type. Not going to duke it out on the category as I don't think it's a big issue. Also Article 7 is probably not necessary, as precedent suggests it will already be effected by the magic invisible clauses of the resolution.

"Using 'and/or' is bad practice in legal documents. We would suggest simply 'or'. But that whole subclause may not be necessary anyway.

"Could the WANA be permitted to offer voluntary assistance to states requesting it? Their inspections in Article 4 only seem to take effect where there's 'credible evidence', but states might wish to insure against hypothetical threats. Another example would be a newly independent wishing to gain external verification of their anti-counterfeiting policies.

"Is there a reason for the word 'extant' in Article 8? Future WA legislation might reasonably differentiate between WA and non-WA states, especially in trade law. If your concern is with repealed legislation, 'active' would serve just as well.

"Nonetheless, I do see one potential loophole. Couldn't a state simply refuse to recognise the validity of a foreign currency (admittedly with the associated legal consequences) thus negating the definition of 'legal tender' and then counterfeit it at will?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Recognizing the negative impact of counterfeit currency operations on nations;

Realizing such actions not only degrade value of and trust in legitimate currency within nations, but also obstruct free trade and damage relations between economic partners;

Determined to protect commerce between nations and foster international goodwill;

If you're still looking for suggestions as to preamble clauses, here are a couple of mutations of your own phrasing to toss at the wall and see what sticks.

DEPLORING the vicious circle of inflation and poverty caused by counterfeit currency;

MINDFUL of the barriers to legitimate trade, mistrust between economic partners, and other extra hurdles thrown up before faithful contractees by rampant counterfeiting;

ADAMANT that doubts about the legitimacy of currency must not fester in the halls of international commerce;

WILLING to do what is necessary to keep trade between nations on a secure footing;

EAGER to bring criminals and economic terrorists to justice;

DETERMINED to end the freeloading of gangsters and the exploitation of poverty by foreign powers;

The World Assembly herby etc. etc.

OK, maybe those last two not so much. Hope the others spark something useful, though.

[Bears Armed]

If you're still looking for suggestions as to preamble clauses, here are a couple of mutations of your own phrasing to toss at the wall and see what sticks.

DEPLORING the vicious circle of inflation and poverty caused by counterfeit currency;

MINDFUL of the barriers to legitimate trade, mistrust between economic partners, and other extra hurdles thrown up before faithful contractees by rampant counterfeiting;

ADAMANT that doubts about the legitimacy of currency must not fester in the halls of international commerce;

WILLING to do what is necessary to keep trade between nations on a secure footing;

EAGER to bring criminals and economic terrorists to justice;

DETERMINED to end the freeloading of gangsters and the exploitation of poverty by foreign powers;

The World Assembly herby etc. etc.

OK, maybe those last two not so much. Hope the others spark something useful, though.

Herby, again?

[Hakio]

"She does have a point. Counterfeiting includes many things, such as counterfeiting money, art, bonds, artifacts, gems, and other valuable items. This is one of the reasons my draft failed, because it only tackled money counterfeiting, and I would hate to see another good attempt at a Counterfeiting draft thrown away." Says Boris Vaishvalkov, the head Foreign Relations And Affairs minister of Balenderg.

"Money counterfeiting is an active attempt to defraud a national government of the tender it recognizes. Product counterfeiting approaches the area of foreign copyright law, which is covered, I believe, by an existing resolution, and also delves into a quagmire of conflicting manufacturing, advertising, and export shenanigans that no sane author will subject themselves to."

"It still wouldn't hurt to clear up the air with a solid definition, though, because of your many protests against the idea, I doubt you will add it," Sia says in respectful disagreement. "As of now, I tentatively support this draft and will notify my constituents likewise. Do you think this your final draft before submission? I'm asking because the 50 'Legionaries of the 'League of Liberty', God what a stupid name, comes to better rulings when they are able to review the legislation before the vote and final debates. "

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...The World Assembly herby etc. etc.

Herby, again?

Eh. Sometimes you eat the b'ar, and sometimes... well, sometimes he eats... uh... <Cough> Uh, probably not you personally, but you know.

[Zunkwentania]

"Money counterfeiting is an active attempt to defraud a national government of the tender it recognizes. Product counterfeiting approaches the area of foreign copyright law, which is covered, I believe, by an existing resolution, and also delves into a quagmire of conflicting manufacturing, advertising, and export shenanigans that no sane author will subject themselves to."

"It still wouldn't hurt to clear up the air with a solid definition, though, because of your many protests against the idea, I doubt you will add it," Sia says in respectful disagreement. "As of now, I tentatively support this draft and will notify my constituents likewise. Do you think this your final draft before submission? I'm asking because the 50 'Legionaries of the 'League of Liberty', God what a stupid name, comes to better rulings when they are able to review the legislation before the vote and final debates. "

"I would agree. It could be interpreted in many different ways, such as ways that allow governments to counterfeit. A definition would be immensely beneficial to this bill."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I would agree. It could be interpreted in many different ways, such as ways that allow governments to counterfeit. A definition would be immensely beneficial to this bill."

"Ambassador, I'd be pleased to hear such a valid interpretation, considering I've made a point of including the terms tender and currency so repetitively. Even defined legal tender once. If you find a genuinely exploitable loophole, I'll close it."

Haiko (and SL, now that I think on it), don't feel left out, I have more in-depth responses to you here and in my other threads/plotlines, but they are heavy on RP, and I just haven't found the bloody time.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As of now, I tentatively support this draft and will notify my constituents likewise. Do you think this your final draft before submission? I'm asking because the 50 'Legionaries of the 'League of Liberty', God what a stupid name, comes to better rulings when they are able to review the legislation before the vote and final debates. "

“Ambassador, I sincerely hope not. I had hoped to have as much critical review of this pact as my Rules of Surrender draft has. What was the phrasing I used? Er…Ah, yes: "…I was really hoping for my esteemed colleagues to shred it, cover it in red pen, stomp on it, slap it around a bit, put out cigarettes on it, spit on it a little, and generally defile it...er, figuratively, of course...so I can make corrections."”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

4. The WANA shall inspect the minting facilities of member states for counterfeiting operations if there is credible evidence to suggest such an operation’s validity, and issue nonbinding evaluations of a member state’s anti-counterfeiting security.

Looking again at Paragraph 4, I see potential for confusion in the word "validity." I understand it's used here to denote the validity of WA suspicions of counterfeiting activity, but there are many nations who will interpret it to mean the legitimacy of the counterfeiting operation itself, and thus either issue a legal challenge or castrate their compliance regimes since the resolution would be held to admit there are "valid" circumstances in which to counterfeit outside of wartime.

Come to that - it's possible the inspection regime should be elaborated for nations known to be in a declared state of war. Seems both silly to inspect for something that is explicitly permitted, and naive not to inspect known legitimate wartime counterfeiting operations for illicit counterfeiting of non-belligerents' currency.

Hang on, lemme parse that better: it's 1) silly to inspect the Bigtopian Bureau of Printing and Engraving for evidence that they're counterfeiting the currency of Lilliputia, against whom they're fighting a terrible war; and also 2) naive to ignore the possibility that the BBPE might also be printing counterfeit almighty greenbacks for use against the CDSP (with whom they're officially at peace), while they're at it. You know, "Hey, long as we're printing up currency, it'd be a shame not to use this program that we're keeping secret on more than just our explicit enemies, huh?"

If the word "validity" changes to something like "existence," or the sentence is altered to read something like "...where reasonable suspicion exists that counterfeiting may be taking place," then this is of less concern. The inspectors visit Bigtopia and ensure they're only minting Lilliputian Bittycoins, keeping their visit secret so as not to interfere in the war; and when they visit the People's Corrupted Republic of Crapistan and find a massive rogue ₦gh-printing operation going on right under the nose of the Minister of Finance they bring it loudly to everyone's attention.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell’s lip curls reflexively at the mention of the contemptible Bigtopian government daring to counterfeit the glorious greenbacks of the C.D.S.P., but regains his composure with a quick shake of his head.
"Aha, thank you, ambassador! Have I ever told you about the time the Bigtopians shot my bird down? Er, perhaps this is an inappropriate venue, yes...This seems another example of my brain understanding what I meant while penning this, without realizing that others wouldn’t see it as clearly. I’ll adjust the phrasing to “Existing” from “Validity”, and tailor the start of that section to include the term “illegal”. I hope that this adjustment will both allow for the WANA to better differentiate between counterfeiting operations of differing circumstance while still protecting nations from onerous inspections."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: *sigh* Bump. The lack of comments is pushing me somewhat towards a test run, but I really don't think it's ready. I'll bump this one more time before then, after another hard read-through, unless I get more input. I guess. Consider yourselves warned.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: *sigh* Bump. The lack of comments is pushing me somewhat towards a test run, but I really don't think it's ready. I'll bump this one more time before then, after another hard read-through, unless I get more input. I guess. Consider yourselves warned.

OOC: That is a scandalous suggestion. The very idea that a proposal might not receive useful comments when drafted on the forum is outrageous heresy, and you should obviously be severely punished for even considering the hasty submission of a proposal barely more than two months old.

[Louisistan]

OOC: *sigh* Bump. The lack of comments is pushing me somewhat towards a test run, but I really don't think it's ready. I'll bump this one more time before then, after another hard read-through, unless I get more input. I guess. Consider yourselves warned.

OOC: That is a scandalous suggestion. The very idea that a proposal might not receive useful comments when drafted on the forum is outrageous heresy, and you should obviously be severely punished for even considering the hasty submission of a proposal barely more than two months old.

OOC: Did someone just say "Jehova"?

[Defwa]

OOC: *sigh* Bump. The lack of comments is pushing me somewhat towards a test run, but I really don't think it's ready. I'll bump this one more time before then, after another hard read-through, unless I get more input. I guess. Consider yourselves warned.

OOC: That is a scandalous suggestion. The very idea that a proposal might not receive useful comments when drafted on the forum is outrageous heresy, and you should obviously be severely punished for even considering the hasty submission of a proposal barely more than two months old.

OOC: Go mischaracterize something else. That semi requirement is mainly to clean up major loop holes, eliminate rule breaking elements, assuage political needs, and most of all to debate the actual beneficial status of a resolution. Due to his talent and forethought, Separatist Peoples has reacted effectively in a way that many authors do not on a topic that everybody is in easy agreement needs legislation and will create a net benefit. I am tired of your over dramatic nonconstructive complaining. People aren't always going to have something constructive on every proposal either due to lack of interest or knowledge in the subject. The weird thing is, we're not actually ambassadors representing nations with intricate economic systems and foreign policies delivering statements in compliance with an international affairs administration. I'm so sorry.
To clause 5 of the proposal, I don't see the point of "confiscation and/or destruction". There's little legitimate reason to keep this stuff and it should only stick around long enough to serve as evidence in court. Otherwise I'm satisfied that this covers everything necessary effectively.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I am tired of your over dramatic nonconstructive complaining.

I've tried being constructive, so I'm not really sure what your argument is. I'd much rather debate the proposal in-character, but the whole point of this tangent is that that isn't happening.

The weird thing is, we're not actually ambassadors representing nations with intricate economic systems and foreign policies delivering statements in compliance with an international affairs administration.

No, we're people playing a game, and if we can't be bothered to play it, then we shouldn't hold others to account for not doing so.

"Post a draft on the forums" is the single worst piece of advice possible for anyone wanting to get involved in the WA, yet it is the mantra repeated over and over by mods - who despise the WA game - and forum regulars - who don't exactly seem overburdened with enthusiasm either.

[Separatist Peoples]

I am tired of your over dramatic nonconstructive complaining.

I've tried being constructive, so I'm not really sure what your argument is. I'd much rather debate the proposal in-character, but the whole point of this tangent is that that isn't happening.

OOC: that would be my fault. DSR, I've embarrassingly managed to miss your suggestions in that post. I'm very sorry, it was not my intention, at all, to ignore your input or your attempt at IC debate. I think that was part of this confusion for Defwa in reaction to your comment, though I suspect the rest of the issue lies elsewhere. I'll address your comment, belatedly, as soon as I can.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: No problem, I will in exchange cease my little threadjack :)

[Separatist Peoples]

"Using 'and/or' is bad practice in legal documents. We would suggest simply 'or'. But that whole subclause may not be necessary anyway.

“Adjusted, Ms. Chinmusic, though I’d be very happy to hear why you find the subclause unnecessary. The theory was, and I hope this answers Ambassador Landfree’s question, that nations should destroy counterfeit tender, but wouldn’t necessarily want to destroy the equipment used to process it. I outlined the options specifically to cut down on nations that might confiscate counterfeit money and then stockpile it for later use, circumventing the “no counterfeiting out of war” bit. I’m not married to the clause, though.”

"Could the WANA be permitted to offer voluntary assistance to states requesting it? Their inspections in Article 4 only seem to take effect where there's 'credible evidence', but states might wish to insure against hypothetical threats. Another example would be a newly independent wishing to gain external verification of their anti-counterfeiting policies.

“That had been my intention originally, and I managed to miss it entirely…oops! I’ve adjusted it to include voluntary requests.”

"Is there a reason for the word 'extant' in Article 8? Future WA legislation might reasonably differentiate between WA and non-WA states, especially in trade law. If your concern is with repealed legislation, 'active' would serve just as well.

“I had used active in the early parts of my drafting and decided extant sounded better in this context. It was included to allow flexibility in future law. I’d rather scrap it entirely, leaving no reason for members to treat non-members compliant with this any differently, but I foresee that attracting ire from the Non-Member Exclusionist elements of the Assembly.”

"Nonetheless, I do see one potential loophole. Couldn't a state simply refuse to recognise the validity of a foreign currency (admittedly with the associated legal consequences) thus negating the definition of 'legal tender' and then counterfeit it at will?"

“Yes, I suppose they could, but how are we to stop anybody who wilfully violates law knowing the penalty awaiting them? I’m open to suggestions to prevent this, but such noncompliance is almost impossible to avoid. I had worded Clause 1 such that, while a nation doesn’t have to recognize a foreign currency, they still wouldn’t be able to print and distribute it with the intention of harming a foreign entity; not unlike a nation exporting chewing gum to the Wads of Wrapper according to their importation laws vs. flooding them intentionally with Drooble’s Best Blowing Gum to destabilize the government. I’m willing to entertain other mechanisms of prevention. Maybe I should get me one of those fancy invisible clauses to fix that? Hmm…”

OOC:

I like this proposal, but it really seems like more of an International Security type. Not going to duke it out on the category as I don't think it's a big issue. Also Article 7 is probably not necessary, as precedent suggests it will already be effected by the magic invisible clauses of the resolution.

The thought was that, while this creates an increase in police spending, it more immediately removes barriers to free trade by reducing instances of fraud. I balanced the long-term IC effects as well, seeing this as, in the long term, having a larger economic impact than police budgetary impact. This kind of category confusion always made me nervous though, so I’m definitely not going to cling to it stubbornly…maybe I’ll make a poll? I don’t think I’ve ever done that!
My eyes aren’t as good as I’d like them to be, so, if I can avoid relying on magic clauses I can’t read, I will.

[The Dark Star Republic]

“Adjusted, Ms. Chinmusic, though I’d be very happy to hear why you find the subclause unnecessary.

"Because requiring states to 'take all necessary steps to suppress counterfeiting operations' is sufficient. If confiscation or destruction is necessary, they can determine that for themselves and carry it out. It's an unneeded level of enumeration, just as mentioning arresting counterfeiters or instituting random checks on minting operations would be. I don't have any objection to you leaving it in, though.

"Would a compromise be requiring that regardless of how they proceed, states render any counterfeiting equipment they confiscate inoperable? That way, they could still hold it as evidence without actually 'destroying' it, but there's no danger of proliferation.

"Nonetheless, I do see one potential loophole. Couldn't a state simply refuse to recognise the validity of a foreign currency (admittedly with the associated legal consequences) thus negating the definition of 'legal tender' and then counterfeit it at will?"

“Yes, I suppose they could, but how are we to stop anybody who wilfully violates law knowing the penalty awaiting them? I’m open to suggestions to prevent this, but such noncompliance is almost impossible to avoid. I had worded Clause 1 such that, while a nation doesn’t have to recognize a foreign currency, they still wouldn’t be able to print and distribute it with the intention of harming a foreign entity; not unlike a nation exporting chewing gum to the Wads of Wrapper according to their importation laws vs. flooding them intentionally with Drooble’s Best Blowing Gum to destabilize the government. I’m willing to entertain other mechanisms of prevention. Maybe I should get me one of those fancy invisible clauses to fix that? Hmm…”

"You're right that this problem is not resolvable. The example I was thinking of comes from pre-Dark Star history.* DSR is a former Soviet Socialist Republic. When the Soviet Socialist Republic was first declared, numerous states refused to recognise that political development, and refused to recognise the new scrip issued by the Workers' Soviet as legitimate, and during the Dark Star Civil War there was extensive counterfeiting by the White Stars. But I don't know that it would actually be illegal under this proposal, because the scrip they were counterfeiting never met their definition of 'legal tender'.

"However, this is getting into mutual recognition of states, which is probably a bigger issue than this draft, and has consequences for other proposals too, so I'll withdraw my objection on those grounds. (Likewise our customary objection to any proposal making a distinction based on 'declared war', another issue this draft can't be expected to resolve on its own.)

"Other comments on the proposal. Your definition of counterfeiting is currently quite narrow. It doesn't cover attempts, conspiracy, or assistance to commit counterfeiting; nor does it cover creating counterfeiting equipment or tools. Also, as a means to preventing counterfeiting, would there be any value in requiring that every nation or agency issuing legal tender on their behalf make every nation that recognises that currency as legal tender aware of any technical changes, design changes, or new issues, in a suitably timely fashion?

"And finally, the entire Dark Star delegation apologises for our appearance, but we're all simultaneously trying to hide our massive, raging erections at Article 6.

"I think I can be confident of saying that regardless of how any of the above is resolved, or not, we will support this proposal."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

* Actually it comes from Russian history.

[Hakio]

"Both categories work for me so... eenie meenie minie moe..." Sia Hedishi covers her eyes and moves inbetween the two options. "Ah! Free trade. My vote goes for free trade."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:

I like this proposal, but it really seems like more of an International Security type. Not going to duke it out on the category as I don't think it's a big issue. Also Article 7 is probably not necessary, as precedent suggests it will already be effected by the magic invisible clauses of the resolution.

The thought was that, while this creates an increase in police spending, it more immediately removes barriers to free trade by reducing instances of fraud. I balanced the long-term IC effects as well, seeing this as, in the long term, having a larger economic impact than police budgetary impact. This kind of category confusion always made me nervous though, so I’m definitely not going to cling to it stubbornly…maybe I’ll make a poll? I don’t think I’ve ever done that!
My eyes aren’t as good as I’d like them to be, so, if I can avoid relying on magic clauses I can’t read, I will.

OOC: I agree with your initial thinking about the category: for a relatively minor investment in police budget and power, every member nation will be returned a massively friendlier environment in which to do business. But every operative clause has to do with security, investigations, and the like. So while none of this bill is intended to increase the physical safety of people or nations from crime, terrorism, war, or whatever, it is still entirely focused on security as written - so I'm not 100% sure the powers-that-be would see the ultimate free trade effect as a clear result of that apparently international security cause. I intend to vote for it regardless of category - but wiser and more experienced minds than mine should weigh in on the legalisms at work here.

If you do wind up submitting as Free Trade, do be sure to make the preamble crystal clear that the economic considerations are paramount herein, and the policing requirements simply instruments of that commercial agenda. (Or, umm... do that anyway).

"Other comments on the proposal. Your definition of counterfeiting is currently quite narrow. It doesn't cover attempts, conspiracy, or assistance to commit counterfeiting; nor does it cover creating counterfeiting equipment or tools. Also, as a means to preventing counterfeiting, would there be any value in requiring that every nation or agency issuing legal tender on their behalf make every nation that recognises that currency as legal tender aware of any technical changes, design changes, or new issues, in a suitably timely fashion?

"And finally, the entire Dark Star delegation apologises for our appearance, but we're all simultaneously trying to hide our massive, raging erections at Article 6.

IC: I... don't actually see a formal definition of counterfeiting in the proposal? It just says that counterfeiting legal tender (the only defined term) shall be illegal. The other items you're concerned with seem to be well taken care of by Clause 5: surely "tak[ing] all necessary steps to suppress counterfeiting operations" would include criminal prohibition of die- and stamp-making, conspiracy, bare attempts, etc. I don't see how a legal system could effectively suppress counterfeiting operations without criminalizing all those other things (not just the successful production of realistic fake currency).

Thus, while we share your support for the proposal (albeit less... physically ), barring the recognition and category questions I don't believe the issues you've raised here actually constitute any kind of weakness, loophole, or oversight.