Having been involved in a case where something similar happened, and it was proved that it had, I tend to disagree with the previous statement, however, I would agree that the more times that the document has been copied, the harder it would be to detect the use of a scanned signature.
However, the bigger point is that the court should not have accepted the copy for precisely the reasons mentioned. Further, I can think of no good reason why the recipient of the document should be allowed to introduce the copy when, presumably, they had the original.
Having been involved in a case where something similar happened, and it was proved that it had, I tend to disagree with the previous statement, however, I would agree that the more times that the document has been copied, the harder it would be to detect the use of a scanned signature.
Yep ) , what we don't know is HOW the photocopy was made.
If the counterfeiter is only a bit "smart", he would have produced, on purpose, a slightly "blurred" photocopy, I have often seen copies produced in tribunal that are so badly photocopied that they are almost illegible they are generally accepted regardless of their quality, but only because the "other party" does not deny their authenticity.
I guess this may also depend on local Laws, maybe Bahrain has alltogether different rules…. ?
jaclaz