'Con Air: exploring the trade in counterfeit and unapproved aircraft parts' by Justin KotzĂ© and Georgios A Antonopoulos in (2023) 63(5) The British Journal of Criminology 1293–1308 comments
Counterfeit aircraft parts are among the most well-known counterfeits and pose a significant risk to public safety. It is estimated that as much as 10% of the legal market for aircraft parts are counterfeits and the presence of these parts on commercial aircraft are more commonplace than many people realise. Yet, criminological research on this pressing issue is remarkably scarce. Informed by accounts from specialised and highly knowledgeable actors embedded in the aviation industry, this paper aims to explore how counterfeit and unapproved parts enter the legitimate supply chain and what factors drive or motivate their circulation and use.
The authors argue
Product counterfeiting is arguably one of the fastest-growing crimes in the world (Sencan 2012; OECD 2019). In essence, this illicit activity involves the unauthorised ‘production and distribution of goods and packaging that infringe intellectual property rights’ (Antonopoulos et al. 2018: 2). Whilst precise measurements are conspicuous only by their absence, estimates suggest that counterfeits make up 7% of all global commerce (ibid.). Able to compete with legitimate business in even the most heavily regulated markets (see Mackenzie 2010), it is certainly conceivable that ‘product counterfeiting is a growing global problem’ (Sullivan and Wilson 2017: 317). This growing problem does not simply pose an issue for corporate right-holders trying to mitigate the financial damage suffered by the theft of intellectual property and subsequent loss of sales. Rather, it has the potential to cause a range of social harms including those associated with health and safety (see Wall and Large 2010).
This is particularly true of the trade in counterfeits described as ‘safety critical’; counterfeit products such as pharmaceuticals, electrical goods, automotive and aircraft parts all pose a significant safety risk to the public (Large 2018). Whilst some criminological attention has been focussed on researching the trade in counterfeit automotive parts (Yar 2005; Shen et al. 2022) and counterfeit pharmaceuticals (Hall and Antonopoulos 2016; Hall et al. 2017), the same cannot be said for the trade in counterfeit commercial aircraft parts. This paucity is particularly strange considering that counterfeit aircraft parts are among the most well-known counterfeits (Sencan 2012), and are ‘among the top risk exposures in all of aviation today’ (Jones 2012: 267). Indeed, it is estimated that as much as 10% of the legal market for aircraft parts are counterfeits (Mackenzie 2010; see also Sencan 2012; Klueber and O’Keefe 2013). It may be fair to say, then, that the presence of fake parts on aircraft are actually more commonplace than many people realise. Moreover, according to Sencan (2012), fake parts are more of an issue in commercial planes, the larger of which routinely carry in excess of 300 passengers. Needless to say, the result of a component failure therefore can be, and has been, catastrophic.
The aviation industry, and the market for aircraft parts in particular, is heavily regulated (Nasheri 2005). How, then, do counterfeit and unapproved parts enter the legitimate supply chain and what factors drive or motivate their circulation and use? This paper attempts to address these crucial questions by drawing upon the findings from ongoing empirical research on safety critical counterfeit products. Utilising rich and detailed qualitative accounts from specialised and highly knowledgeable actors embedded in the aviation industry, we hope to offer some informative insight to help explore and explain this dangerous issue. As this is relatively untrodden ground for criminology, our intention here is to offer a critical initial foray into the trade in counterfeit and unapproved aircraft parts and, in doing so, set the groundwork for future criminological research in this area. Before we delve into an account of our methodology and the analysis of our findings, let us begin by outlining the issue.
