WELCOME!
Introduction Text:
This brief survey examines how professionals and researchers use the terms "illicit" and "illegal" when discussing counterfeiting and unauthorized trade.
This is a scholarly academic reserach project, but we seek pop-cutlure references or situations for a common application (and its fun). This survey starts with a few framing questions sparked from an article on "Illicit LEGO product (New York Times, April 11, 2026: "The Case of the Illicit Lego: 3 Men Arrested in $1 Million Theft").
Background: This research expands upon work in food fraud prevention, where standardizing terminology (e.g., "food fraud" in relation to “food adulteration” or "economically motivated adulteration") improved communication across GFSI standards, ISO frameworks, and law enforcement agencies (INTERPOL/Europol). We are examining whether similar definitional challenges exist in the broader counterfeiting and illicit trade field, where 'illicit,' 'illegal,' 'unauthorized,' and related terms are sometimes used inconsistently.
Your participation: This survey takes approximately 5-7 minutes. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported only in aggregate form. Participation is voluntary, and you may skip any questions. For EVERY question, you will have the option to select "Prefer not to answer" and also to provide details in an open comment box.
Research use: The findings will inform scholarly articles on definitional frameworks in counterfeiting research and may contribute to terminology standardization efforts that is similar to those successful in food fraud prevention.
Questions or concerns: Contact John W SPINK, PHD at John.Spink@YorkPartnersLLC.com.
By clicking 'Next,' you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this research.
Thanks, JWS.