First, possesses;

Second, a false coin of (the United States)/[Give Name of Foreign Country];

Third, known by the defendant to be false;

Fourth, with the intent to sell/use/circulate/export/(cause to be offered/passed).

Sections 1575 and 1591 have not been construed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Very few cases have mentioned or construed sections 1578 and 1579. The court has made it clear that possession is a separate crime from "classic" forgery or uttering, although the possession charge is a lesser included offense and thereby merged in "classic" forgery or uttering, if the defendant is charged with either of the latter crimes. If the defendant has not made the forgery or has not uttered the forgery, however, the possession crimes are available for prosecution. Ballew v. State, 55 Okl. Cr. 247, 28 P.2d 993 (1934); Hamilton v. State, 53 Okl. Cr. 281, 10 P.2d 734 (1932). Section 1579 is a general possession statute, as opposed to the limited coverage of section 1578. In the opinion of the Commission, both have the same basic elements. State v. Schave, 72 Okl. Cr. 75, 113 P.2d 203 (1941), sets forth the "main ingredients" of section 1578 as possession, intent, and knowledge. Moreover, it is not necessary to allege a specific person as the target of the fraud. Williams v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 82, 142 P. 1181 (1914).