Is selling forgery-producing equipment a crime in the United States? There are new opportunities emerging in forgery, including digital forgery of e-documents, deep-fake technology for creating false evidence, and 3D printing of the equipment (e.g., embossing tools) for creating fake official documents. Does it constitute a crime to sell such software or equipment to someone who uses it for forgery? Even if not chargeable as forgery, would selling such things be possibly considered conspiracy or accessory to the crime? If so, what factors would make one criminally liable? For the sake of the argument, let's say I advertise the product as &quot;perfect for pranks, gags, and forgeries.&quot;
Possibly: remember that we have 50 different states and their laws plus the federal government. Alabama criminal code §13A-9-9 define the crime of &quot;possession of a forgery device&quot;, which is when one makes or possesses with knowledge of its character any plate, die or other device, appliance, apparatus, equipment or article specifically designed or adapted for use in forging written instruments with intent to use it himself, or to aid or permit another to use it for purposes of forgery. Selling is covered under the fact of possession. Arizona has a similar law, referring to the situation when a person Makes or possesses with knowledge of its character and with intent to commit fraud any plate, die, or other device, apparatus, equipment, software, access device, article, material, good, property or supply specifically designed or adapted for use in forging written instruments. Makes or possesses any device, apparatus, equipment, software, access device, article, material, good, property or supply adaptable for use in forging written instruments with intent to use it or to aid or permit another to use it for purposes of forgery. Federal law would be covered here: §474 covers any plate, stone, or other thing, or any part thereof, from which has been printed, or which may be prepared by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury for the purpose of printing, any obligation or other security of the United States, uses such plate, stone, or other thing, or any part thereof, or... but this could not be reasonably interpreted to include a printing press, and would not cover a gadget that forges passports (Dept. of State, not Treasury). There isn't a federal statute with the breadth of the Alabama law. Any such law would have to include an &quot;intent to forge&quot; element.
The ultimate question is whether an obviously joke enterprise constitutes a real offering of securities or just performance art (a Ponzi scheme is one of many types of securities fraud). An unregistered offering of securities that does not fall within an exception is per se unlawful under federal law, but a security is generally defined as something offered with at least a prospect of making a potential profit for the investor which is not something that is true of this offering. (And if less than $1,000,000 are sold it might even be within an exemption to securities laws). State securities laws are divided into two categories. Most allow any offering of securities so long as proper disclosures are made and the offer is restricted to the right kind of investors. A minority impose substantive quality standards on offerings and this offering might violate the law in those states (although this still would present the question of whether a known money losing opportunity is really a security since there is no evidence of an intent to potentially make a profit from the investment). I do not believe that California imposes substantive quality of investment standards on public or private offerings of securities. Any deal whether or not it is a security is actionable if it is fraudulent. Normally an element of any claim for fraud is justified reliance upon a representation or upon a failure to disclose information. But, in this case, it is hard to see how anyone could say that they were justified in relying on any representation in making a purchase because they were told that they were being cheated. So, it is hard to see how a fraud claim would be sustained here either. I'm not sure that this cleanly falls into the category of gambling either, even though there is money at stake and the outcome isn't entirely certain. This doesn't really seem like a game of chance to me. Indeed, viewed as performance art, this scheme might even be entitled to First Amendment protection. Ultimately, I would not prioritize a civil or criminal action against this enterprise either from the perspective of a private lawyer representing an investor, or from the perspective of a government enforcement authority. And, while I would be a little nervous about running this enterprise, I wouldn't be quaking in my boots. In a civil lawsuit, any award would probably be minimal, and in a criminal case there would probably be an extremely generous plea offered.
Am i going to jail? I'm so scared. No, probably not. The details depend on jurisdiction, but normally the only crime you could be accused of would be that of forgery. However, forgery by definition requires an "intention to deceive". So my personal advice would be to come clean immediately: Go to your employer, and tell them you did not understand the checkout system and accidentally signed yourself, instead of having the customer sign. If you do that, what you did would not count as forgery, because (as you explain) you did not do it on purpose to trick someone. Now, your boss may still decide to discipline you in some way, maybe even fire you, but that's out of your hand. If they are reasonable, they'll hopefully understand a minor mistake on the first day. That said, it is possible your jurisdiction has special penalties for incorrectly filling out medical documents, so there may be more to it - but I doubt it. To be sure, try asking someone you know and trust who is familiar with the legal rules around medication. Or book a single consultation with a lawyer - this is not cheap (typically around $100 in the USA, or 100€ in the EU), but will give you peace of mind. You could also try asking around if there is a local initiative which offers legal help, possibly a professional organization or trade union.
The relevant section of US patent law was already posted in an answer on one of the questions you linked, but I'll repeat it: 35 USC 271 (a): Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. Merely making a patented invention is infringement; it isn't relevant whether you sell it. It is also infringement if you use it yourself, regardless of who made it or whether you paid them, or whether you would have otherwise bought it from the patent holder. There are some special exceptions for things like certain kinds of pharmaceuticals, but I browsed the rest of 35 USC Chapter 28, and didn't see anything that would appear to be relevant in this case.
Generally, it's illegal. You are creating a derivative work and you are not allowed to do that without the permission of the copyright holder. Some jurisdictions may have exceptions, such as fair use under US law. However, this generally protects uses that are intended to comment on or parody the work. It doesn't sound like that is the purpose of your image modification. NOT including: faceswaps, modifications that would shame or affect negatively the reputation of the actors on the image. That doesn't make it legal. I share it in a way that I don't make any economic profit out of it, and clearly stating that it is a modified image (not sure if inside the image, or in the caption under it) and state who is the legal owner of the original image. That doesn't make it legal, either.
W&amp;H can avoid legal problems by reporting the suspected crime to the relevant tax authorities (IRS, Pennsylvania and the other state, let us say Ohio). This can even be done anonymously, although doing this non-anonomously provides strong evidence that W&amp;H are not parties to the crime. Filing with a false address could constitute a violation of 26 USC 7206, when one Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter &quot;Could&quot; comes from two issues. First, L has to not believe that this is their true address, and second, the address has to be a material matter. The tax form and instructions require you to supply an address, but do not define any rules for what can be &quot;an address&quot;. The IRS does define a concept of &quot;tax home&quot; which is the city where you work, bit that is relevant only for deductions related to travel. At least w.r.t. federal taxes, it is not obvious that this is a material matter, unless one is relying on state-specific standard sales tax deductions as part of deduction itemization. The government would also have to prove that they did not believe that the PA address is their &quot;home address&quot;, a position that is facilitated by the lack of indication of what qualifies as a &quot;home address&quot;. Para 2 of the tax fraud statute might apply to W&amp;H, which target one who Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document As described, you have not taken an illegal action, e.g. you have not encouraged, condoned, written in false information, etc. What you have done is not reported a possible tax crime that you are aware of. There are various federal laws whereby a person in a &quot;special&quot; position is obligated to report a suspicion of a crime (law enforcement w.r.t. child sexual exploitation, etc), but there is no general legal obligation with criminal penalties whereby you must report a suspected federal crime. This is a good thing, because a criminal conviction can be a conditional bar to citizenship, under the category of Crimes Against the Authority of the Government. Actually lying about L's residence moves this into the area of a well-defined felony offense, 18 USC 1001 (lying in a federal matter), which would clearly cause citizenship problems. The same set of questions and answers would arise w.r.t. PA and (presumptively) OH tax laws. In this case, though, there is most likely a crime – tax evasion in OH. I say most likely because I don't know if they filed a fully truthful Ohio tax form, or a fully truthful PA tax form. But if they lived in Ohio and yet did not report their Ohio income (and instead filed a PA income tax form), they did not comply with ORC Ch. 5747, esp §08 and §15, which incurs penalties (but is not a crime). As with the matter of federal income taxes, W&amp;H do not have a legal obligation to report suspected crimes, but they must not actively aid in the commission of a crime.
In general, you cannot contract to do anything illegal. However, ... An argument could be made that permission has been granted to, for example, enter property and remove the item. If permission has been granted, entering property and taking an item is not a crime.
The only real answer is that Congress hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) chosen to pass such a law. But the kinds of forgery that Congress might plausibly and constitutionally prohibit, such as forgery of checks, forgery of legal documents, and forgery as part of a fraudulent scheme are already crimes under state law, and the states handle such prosecutions perfectly well. There is really no need for a separate federal law on such issues. The kinds of forgery covered in the answer b grovkin would probably not be covered by a federal forgery statute, if one were to be passed. But that is speculation.