Humanities desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 28[edit]

$1,000,000 in small bills, or you get your kid back in installments[edit]

In films and tv programmes kidnappers often specify "small bills" in their payment demands. What denominations are typically meant? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up to $20 would be my guess. They would pass unremarked. A $50 or $100 might be noticed, especially back in the day when that was a lot more money than it is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want much smaller if you intend a quick getaway, see? A bag, box or briefcase with a million US ones weighs 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb), plus container. Laundering into loonies would just dig you 6.27 times deeper into the hole. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley a loonie weighs a lot more than 6.27 times an American dollar bill. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me Shirley! shoy (reactions) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Tiny Toon Adventures: Buster Busts Loose!, Shirley the Loon weighs as much as Plucky Duck, who you could call a "greenback". Both use bills, though. Here in the real world, coins just look like gold, but the infoboxes tell it like it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laundering into loonies? or lugging lots of looted lolly by Luan Liming in Liaoning? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related, I recall something Woody Allen said in an early standup routine. There was this time he was kidnapped, and the perps notified his parents, who "snapped into action right away; they rented out my room." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that ransom demands these days are made for something a bit lighter. I guess we could always take a vote on it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly expect that when this trope originally appeared, it meant no large bills, i.e. $500s and $1000s, which would have been phenomenally hard to launder. Possibly it also meant no $100s, but those were denominations you'd see individuals capable of having sometimes (in 1950 the average weekly salary in the US was a little over $60, so it's possible someone who withdrew a lot of savings might have a $100 bill). As to what it means presently, I don't really know. My instinct is $20s, because of how annoying $100s have become to pass (since they attract scrutiny a ransomer might not want). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between the cliché nature of the expression and the controls the government has on withdrawing sums greater than 10,000 dollars, the average ransom demand may well be different nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, we have £50 notes, which hardly anyone uses (and some shops even refuse to accept), I think partly because they are too large to commonly be useful, and partly because they are so rare that people are a bit suspicious of them. (They have devalued by about a quarter over my lifetime, but they don't seem to have become notably more common). I would have assumed that this would be a good example of what the OP is talking about - denominations so large that criminals wouldn't use them because they would attract suspicion. Except according to two sources given on that article, they are actually the preferred currency of criminal and tax-evaders - so much so, that people are arguing for their abolition. Iapetus (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank of England "expects" to issue a new polymer £50 note, featuring an image of Alan Turing, by the end of 2021. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folks will be pleased to know that ransom money, along with embezzlement and extortion, is tax deductible. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's only fair, what with income from those illegal activities being taxable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, similarly the vast majority of retailers in the U.S. accept only up to $20 bills. That's what Wehwalt was alluding to in his response. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There can also be concerns about counterfeiting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a retailer deny a $50 but they look at it closely and pen it and I've only done it after my ATM started offering them in the 2010s. And New York City is expensive, the fuzzy line where ATMs stop offering fifties is probably somewhere between San Fran/NYC/LA/DC and Norfolk. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many retailers in England and Wales won't even take Scottish money, no matter what the denomination. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well - it's not legal tender--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, but they're not legal tender even in Scotland. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the Scottish equivalent of Itchy And Scratchy money, except not no refunds? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure Derek Mackay would agree with that analysis. But yes, it’s a bit better than Nor'n Ir'n money. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK analogies to Confederate money? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well kinda. Except Bank Charter Act 1844 was the defining moment. And there wasn't a civil war. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such, but there were centuries of bloodshed between Scotland and England before they were unified into Great Britain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whereas Northern Ireland has always been quite peaceful, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

** cough ** -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... are there any cases where a modern day kidnapper asked for the ransom in bitcoin (or some other e-currency)? Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes. Here's a horrifying recent example: CRIMINAL GANG ABDUCTS AND TORTURES CRYPTOCURRENCY TRADERS, DEMANDS MASSIVE BITCOIN RANSOM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In lighter news, it seems a bit of ransomware named RandomLocker is going around releasing its cyberhostages for the absurdly reasonable starting price of ten American dollars (converted to code). Can't paste a link, and don't even feel safe clicking most results, but Google it if you must. Has to be an all-time low in the grand scheme of globally reported extortion, if nothing else. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as underwhelming as trying to hold the entire world to ransom for ONE MILLION DOLLARS! More seriously though, it could be quite a good plan. At such a low amount, people may be more willing to pay, and less willing to go to the hassle of reporting it to the police or trying to prosecute. But multiply that over many victims, and it could add up to a decent haul. Iapetus (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone atop this pyramid is laughing all the way to the bank. All great pyramids are cracked eventually, though. Doesn't make them fall like a house of cards or shatter like a glass ceiling, but they're not going to look so bright in 400 years, now will they? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to get money that will not be noticed and cannot be traced. Thus, sometimes there is a request for used bills, unmarked. Bruno Hauptmann got tripped up by using a gold certificate,which were being actively withdrawn from circulation for enough time before then that the use of one was noticed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly warning - with the new pound coin being unforgeable the art of the coiners has turned to the two pound coin. Do examine very carefully any you may receive in your change. 2A00:23C5:CDAC:6B00:7D82:51B0:48DA:AF8F (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handy guide here, in case they ask for your £1M ransom in £2 coins. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to note what a "large bill" was when the trope became a thing. Prior to 1969 (when they were officially withdrawn from the market) the U.S. had, in circulation, bills as large as $10,000. See Large denominations of United States currency. These notes were legal tender, but also highly noticeable. So, while you could spend a $1000 bill, it raised serious eyebrows. Small denominations (especially 1s and 5s) often get passed without scrutiny, which is why small bills are preferred. No one really looked closely at a single, or even a bunch of singles. --Jayron 32 12:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical whether any retailer (perhaps outside of luxury retailers catering to wealthy clients) would have accepted a $10,000 bill. "Legal tender" means something different than what a lot of people think; it simply means any lender must accept it as payment ("in tender") for a debt, absent an agreement otherwise. (Taxes due are also sometimes included under legal tender laws.) It doesn't mean a seller is required to accept it for purchases. Indeed, many businesses refuse cash altogether (ever bought something online and paid in cash?). --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that those large denominations were normally used for business-to-business transactions, if the business owners in question were disinclined to accept checks. According to notes I made when reading John Franch's book Robber Baron: The Life of Charles Tyson Yerkes (ISBN 0-252-03099-0), Yerkes got his start in Chicago public transit when he bought majority control of the North Chicago City Railway Co. The two largest owners in 1885 held 35.7% and 14.6% of the stock and were willing to sell it but only for cash, which Yerkes was able to raise and pay them. The larger block of shares alone cost him $10,700,000! --76.71.6.164 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely true, though many black market transactions were done with large bills; as noted in our article on the subject, one of the impetuses for removing them from circulation was to curb this usage. --Jayron 32 17:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back when Facebook was cool and weed was shady, I often arranged pickups through it and COD was the only plan. Kind of a black market, but kind of a legitimate brokerage. Storekeepers are free to refuse or accept virtually any deal, or even lock potential customers outside, but I'm fairly sure the Post Office has to sell a citizen as many stamps, boxes and envelopes as legal tender can match (money orders top out at $999.99, though, at least in Canada). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that sounds like quite a pricey deal. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never used Daz Dollars, Snoop Cents or Bo$$ Bux, just down with the brown once or twice, usually easier being green. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a debit account to buy a few lids of Snoop's scents since (feat. actual lids!), and yes, they are a bit pricey, next to that classic Facebook flava funk. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]