U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Forensic Examination of Constructed Documents

NCJ Number
186102
Journal
International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners Volume: 5 Dated: December/January 1999 Pages: 386-391
Author(s)
Nancy N. Berthold; Gregory R. Dalzell
Date Published
1999
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This paper identifies the various types of fraudulent travel documents and discusses some of the methods used to construct them.
Abstract
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Forensic Document Laboratory (INS/FDL) maintains a large collection of genuine sample documents from around the world, so as to have comparisons for questioned documents. Because the INS/FDL cannot maintain a comprehensive collection of genuine sample documents from every country, comparative forensic examinations are not always possible. Proper consideration of various document features, however, can yield a finding that a document is a constructed counterfeit. Handwork is a classic feature of constructed documents. An example of this method occurs when the counterfeiter must make opaque a relatively large area of a seal or ornamental design on a document and then subsequently draw in by hand on the plate what is missing. In the production of printing plates, the counterfeiter must "opaque out" the original entries from the document being copied; however, some counterfeits are for one-time use, and the preparation of a plate is not required. This may involve the use of a color copier to reproduce a rubber stamp impression. Other features of a questioned document that should be examined are electrostatic reproduction, typewriting, and language; grammar/typist/watermarks; altered and composite photographs; signatures; high-tech inconsistencies; artificial aging/folding; fracture matches/indented writing; and content and contextual inconsistencies. 5 figures