FILE No.141Unsolved
Among the change at a shop was a suspicious 10,000-yen bill. A clerk held the bill up to a bright light and could not see the watermark.
Under the same light, three genuine 10,000-yen bills issued around the same time all clearly showed the watermark. This bill is not dirty.
What can be said for certain about this bill?
If you get stuck, open the hints one at a time, in order.
Under the same light, what did the genuine bills show?
Is this bill dirty?
Can a watermark be made by printing?
What can be said for certain about this bill?
Choose the answer closest to the truth.
It is strongly suspected to be counterfeit
The answer is "It is strongly suspected to be counterfeit."
Under the same light, genuine bills from the same period showed a watermark. It is not because of weak light. The bill is not dirty, so dirt cannot be the cause.
There is also no basis for "old bills have no watermark." A watermark is built into the paper and cannot be made by printing. A bill without a watermark is strongly suspected to be counterfeit.
Because the bill looks just like a genuine one.
The cases on this site are fictional puzzles created for entertainment. Any resemblance to real people, organizations or events is coincidental.
© Unsolved Files
