|
|
|
|
|
by fc417fc802
136 days ago
|
|
I'm not sure that photoshopping a dog in place of the portrait would qualify to though. It's immediately obvious that it is neither you nor a valid government issued document so doesn't that preclude it qualifying as forgery? |
|
> A document in the classic sense requires an embodied declaration of intent that identifies an issuer and is suitable for providing proof in legal transactions. In the case of a lawyer's letter, the signature is an essential part of the standard repertoire of authenticity.
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Document-fraud-via-email-Why-th...
So removing some parts to make it _could_ make it safe, to Not create a "risk of confusion":
> Even if computer processing creates the appearance of a genuine document, the typical characteristics of the original must be present to establish a serious risk of confusion. Likewise, the BayObLG did not consider the offense of forging evidential data according to Section 269 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) to be fulfilled.