Essentially, the argument just boils down to the fact that you’re… not making the bill unusable. As long as the denomination is still visible and not altered to another number, and it’s possible to see anti-fraud measures like the green seal well enough, you’re not rendering it unfit for circulation.
There is the problem of ATMs sometimes rejecting stamped bills (or accepting them but having the bank send them back to the Fed to be replaced with new, clean ones) but afaik it’s rare and not too likely as long as you don’t cover the denomination.
Most businesses don’t reject stamped bills as they have no reason to expect additional markings would mean a bill is actually NOT real, and most people won’t decide to just never spend it again because it has a stamp.
As long as you don’t promote/advertise a business, or change the actual denomination of the bill, you’re fine.
As someone else already pointed out, the “with intent to render such […] unfit to be reissued” part is key here.
The Stamp Stampede has a good resource on this.
Essentially, the argument just boils down to the fact that you’re… not making the bill unusable. As long as the denomination is still visible and not altered to another number, and it’s possible to see anti-fraud measures like the green seal well enough, you’re not rendering it unfit for circulation.
There is the problem of ATMs sometimes rejecting stamped bills (or accepting them but having the bank send them back to the Fed to be replaced with new, clean ones) but afaik it’s rare and not too likely as long as you don’t cover the denomination.
Most businesses don’t reject stamped bills as they have no reason to expect additional markings would mean a bill is actually NOT real, and most people won’t decide to just never spend it again because it has a stamp.
As long as you don’t promote/advertise a business, or change the actual denomination of the bill, you’re fine.