An empirical examination of product counterfeiting crime impacting the U.S. military

Article

Abstract

Counterfeit parts in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) supply chain threaten national security by compromising critical military operations and placing the lives of military service members at risk. With the goal of illustrating the nature of the risk as it relates to types of counterfeit parts, how they entered the supply chain, and were identified and processed through the criminal justice system, we assemble and analyze open-source information on criminal schemes involving counterfeits in the DOD supply chain. We utilize the Product Counterfeiting Database (PCD) to capture every indicted scheme linked to the DOD and describe characteristics of the schemes, offenders, and victims. These data provide empirical insights into the counterfeiting of parts and equipment in the DOD supply chain. We conclude with an overview of key issues to consider when weighing opportunities for product counterfeiting as well as implications for policy and practice.

Keywords

Counterfeit Military Department of Defense Supply chain National security 

References

  1. Chaudhry P, Zimmerman A (2009) The economics of counterfeit trade: governments, consumers, pirates and intellectual property rights. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. Chermak SM, Freilich JD, Parkin WS, Lynch JP (2012) American terrorism and extremist crime data sources and selectivity bias: an investigation focusing on homicide events committed by far-right extremists. J Quant Criminol 28:191–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke RV, Eck JE (2005) Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/crimeanalysis60steps.pdf Google Scholar
  4. Eck JE, Spelman W (1987) Problem solving: problem-oriented policing in Newport News. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldstein H (1979) Improving policing: a problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delinquency 24:236–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldstein H (1990) Problem-oriented policing. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Heinonen JA, Wilson JM (2012) Product counterfeiting at the state level: an empirical examination of Michigan-related incidents. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 36(4):273–290Google Scholar
  8. Heinonen JA, Holt TJ, Wilson JM (2012) Product counterfeits in the online environment. International Criminal Justice Review 22(4):353–371Google Scholar
  9. Hollis ME, Wilson JM (2014) Who are the guardians in product counterfeiting? A theoretical application of routine activities theory. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 16:169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kinghorn R (2012) A private sector perspective for Building public-private partnerships when investigating counterfeit products. A-CAPP Backgrounder Series. Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection, East Lansing. http://a-capp.msu.edu/sites/default/files/files/Kinghorn_Partnerships_71812.pdf
  11. OECD (2008) The economic impact of counterfeiting and piracy.Organization for Economic co-Operation and Development, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/sti/38707619.pdf
  12. OECD & EUIPO (2016) trade in counterfeit and pirated goods: mapping the economic impact. Organization for Economic co-Operation and Development and EU intellectual property Office (EUIPO), Paris http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/4216071e.pdf?expires=1461263003&id=id&accname=ocid177642&checksum=372247FB8F85E6A7097594030D5FB676
  13. Phillips T (2005) Knockoff: the deadly trade in counterfeit goods. Kogan Page, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Satchwell G (2004) A sick business: counterfeit medicines and organised crime. The Stockholm Network, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Sullivan BA, Chermak SM, Wilson JM, Freilich JD (2014) The nexus between terrorism and product counterfeiting in the United States. Global Crime 15(3–4):357–378Google Scholar
  16. U.S. CBP (2017) Intellectual property rights Seizure Statistics. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of International Trade, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/ipr/statistics
  17. U.S. DOC (2010) Defense Industrial Base Assessment: Counterfeit Electronics. Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. http://www.agmaglobal.org/cms/uploads/BIS%20Survey%20(January%202010%20final).pdf
  18. U.S. GAO (2010a) Defense Supplier Base: DOD should leverage ongoing initiatives in developing its Program to mitigate risk of counterfeit parts. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/302313.pdf Google Scholar
  19. U.S. GAO (2010b) Intellectual property: observations on efforts to quantify the economic effects of counterfeit and pirated goods. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10423.pdf Google Scholar
  20. U.S. GAO (2016) Counterfeit parts: DOD needs to improve reporting and oversight to reduce supply chain risk. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675227.pdf Google Scholar
  21. U.S. SENATE (2012) Inquiry into Counterfeit Electronic Parts in the Department of Defense Supply Chain. Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt167/pdf/CRPT-112srpt167.pdf
  22. UNICRI (2007) Counterfeiting: a global spread, a global threat. United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, Turin http://www.unicri.it/news/article/0712-3_counterfeiting_crt_foundation Google Scholar
  23. United States V. Mccloskey (2011) Government’s Consolidated Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing and Motion for Downward Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §5K1.1, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, September 30, 2011Google Scholar
  24. Wilson JM, Fenoff R (2014) Distinguishing counterfeit from authentic product retailers in the virtual marketplace. International Criminal Justice Review 24:39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson JM, Sullivan BA (2016) Brand owner approaches to assessing the risk of product counterfeiting. J Brand Manag 23(3):327–344Google Scholar
  26. Wilson JM, Sullivan BA, Hollis ME (2016) Measuring the “unmeasurable”: approaches to assessing the nature and extent of product counterfeiting. International Criminal Justice Review 26(3):259–276Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection (A-CAPP)Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal Justice, Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection (A-CAPP)Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations