As a Canadian I have been slowly adapting to the change in my money. In November 2011 the Bank of Canada introduced our first polymer note. By way of easing the population into becoming accustomed to the new look and feel, they decided to start with the $100 note. Being the highest circulated denomination this was a good way to begin. Next came the $50 note and then earlier this month the true transition started – the polymer $20 was introduced on November 7th. There have been many opinions as to why Canada decided to go with polymer – extended life expectancy, a technology upgrade, following other early adopters like Australia, Mexico, Chile, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan and others… and last, but certainly not least the ability to introduce advanced anti-counterfeiting technology. While counterfeiting is not a topic of much media attention, it is certainly a hot topic with central banks and law enforcement around the world. When the Bank of Canada first introduced the idea that they were considering polymer as a replacement substrate for our notes, the reasons given often never mentioned anti-counterfeiting. Now that polymer is here to stay* the anti-counterfeiting advantages are more widely publicized. It is also interesting to note that Canada is the largest country so far to adopt polymer as a replacement substrate for all denominations.

The key question in this decision (in this writers opinion) is the effect polymer will have on reducing the existence of counterfeit notes. While Australia does not publish quantitative data with regard to counterfeiting investigations, I did stumble across the table below when attempting to search for such data. The table displays statistics for many countries, detailing figures from 2005 of the number of counterfeiting offences recorded by law enforcement officials. Notably both Australia and the United States are missing in this list. However, The Reserve Bank of Australia has noted that counterfeiting in that country has decreased by more than 90%. Other countries that have adopted polymer have signalled similar drops in the occurrence of counterfeit for their polymer denominations.

I sincerely believe that Canada could be the largest and most significant test of polymer as an anti-counterfeiting substrate so far. I am also curious as to whether the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States is considering switch to polymer. As a true global currency it is well known that US notes are some of the most counterfeited notes in the world. I have asked associates at the FRB whether they felt there was any possibility that they would consider polymer in the future. The answer so far – publicly – has been a resounding no. It remains to be seen (again, in this writers opinion) whether the experience of Canada over the next few years might persuade our neighbours to reconsider. The evidence – so far – and from a sizeable test group of countries, seems compelling.

* Interestingly Thailand stopped producing polymer notes because (as I was told) the public perceived that the notes “felt dirty”. I am not sure if this is an accurate reason for the switch back to paper, but one has to recognize the power of public opinion to change a politicians mind. It is my feeling that this fear of public back-lash at least plays a part in the US resistance to polymer. Ironically here in Canada our politicians and central bankers take a rather more terse attitude. As with the introduction of our famed “Loonies” and “Twonies” – we were basically told to adapt as there was no going back to the “old ways”.

Rank	CountriesÂ	AmountÂ	Date
# 1	  Canada:	165,014	2005Â
# 2	  Austria:	13,264	2005Â
# 3	  Poland:	9,513	2005Â
# 4	  Italy:	9,414	2005Â
# 5	  Germany:	7,873	2006Â
# 6	  Portugal:	7,319	2005Â
# 7	  Turkey:	5,243	2006Â
# 8	  Czech Republic:	3,989	2005Â
# 9	  Japan:	3,765	2005Â
# 10	  Belarus:	2,844	2006Â
# 11	  India:	2,383	2006Â
# 12	  Finland:	2,344	2005Â
# 13	  Slovenia:	1,823	2006Â
# 14	  Spain:	1,652	2006Â
# 15	  Ukraine:	1,480	2006Â
# 16	  Sweden:	1,259	2006Â
# 17	  Lithuania:	1,170	2005Â
# 18	  Kazakhstan:	1,077	2006Â
# 19	  Netherlands:	776	2005Â
# 20	  Syria:	678	2006Â
# 21	  Slovakia:	662	2006Â
# 22	  Denmark:	525	2005Â
# 23	  Croatia:	470	2005Â
# 24	  Morocco:	405	2005Â
# 25	  Romania:	343	2005Â
# 26	  Bangladesh:	325	2006Â
# 27	  Norway:	320	2005Â
# 28	  Greece:	319	2005Â
# 29	  Serbia and Montenegro:	266	2006Â
# 30	  Ireland:	242	2005Â
# 31	  Bosnia and Herzegovina:	241	2005Â
# 32	  Malaysia:	184	2005Â
# 33	  Latvia:	175	2006Â
# 34	  Macedonia, Republic of:	172	2006Â
# 35	  United Arab Emirates:	171	2006Â
# 36	  Lebanon:	137	2006Â
# 37	  Kenya:	119	2005Â
# 38	  Ecuador:	107	2005Â
# 39	  New Zealand:	85	2006Â
# 40	  Georgia:	82	2005Â
# 41	  Costa Rica:	65	2005Â
# 42	  Armenia:	60	2006Â
# 43	  Nicaragua:	56	2005Â
# 44	  Bahrain:	52	2006Â
# 45	  Kyrgyzstan:	43	2005Â
# 46	  Tajikistan:	35	2006Â
# 47	  Brunei:	34	2005Â
# 48	  Monaco:	32	2006Â
# 49	  Nepal:	30	2006Â
# 50	  Singapore:	28	2006Â
# 51	  Moldova:	27	2005Â
# 52	  Malta:	20	2006Â
# 53	  Mauritius:	17	2006Â
# 54	  Belize:	16	2006Â
# 55	  Azerbaijan:	15	2006Â
= 56	  Mongolia:	12	2005Â
= 56	  El Salvador:	12	2006Â
= 56	  Turkmenistan:	12	2006Â
# 59	  Liechtenstein:	5	2005Â
# 60	  Cyprus:	1	2005Â
# 61	  Paraguay:	0	2005Â

SOURCE: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control International Statistics on Crime and Justice, 2011