Discussion Article 310(1) criminal code, i.e. crimes of counterfeiting of money and other means of payment or equivalent documents.

Not only the average man, but also the Polish legislature, see the seriousness of counterfeiting. All you have to do is realize that among the crimes against the trading of money and securities, this is defined in Article 310 k.k. (i.e.

forging or redoing Polish or foreign money) is a crime, whereas the crimes specified in the other regulations are "only" offences.

In this article we will look at how Polish legislation regulates the question of counterfeiting of money and other means of payment and try to find an answer to the question whether the law is optimal in this respect, at least in theory.

In the film “Kabaret” with 1972 (dir. Bob Fosse) Liza Minelli sings a song about money making this world move. It is difficult to disagree with this sentence (especially if you treat it metaphorically, not literal).

Money is practically the basis of the economy and has an influence not only on itself, but also often on human relations (or the amount of money held by man is seen as a measure of social status). Therefore, money is a common object of desire.

Paradoxically, not only for the poor, but also for those who have them in excess; for it is not known from now on that appetite grows as they eat. Therefore, it is easy to know that almost as old as money, there is also a crime associated with it, or falsification.

A brief historical outline of the evolution of money and of counterfeiting offences

Initially, there was no money in the form we know today. Exchange trade was then applied. Of course, the goods to be exchanged did not have an equal value, so it was established that ‘e.g. a sack of salt was worth three sheep or one A cow.

The Roman name of money – the pecunia – shows that the Romans have seen wealth in cattle since the earliest times – pecus” [1] . Such a trade was not convenient, for example, it required great investment in storing the goods. Therefore, a more convenient means of trade was sought.

Such means proved to be, among others, gold. However, it was not free of defects either, as for each transaction the appropriate quantity of the aggregate had to be weighed. The innovative idea was used by the Phoenicians, who “stamped” a lump of a given rock with their weight, as well as the master's signature. This practice led to the emergence of coins.

Paper money prototype appeared in China, in 119 These were deposit evidence. In the 17th century, deposit receipts for silver were introduced in Sweden, followed by banknotes printed on silk (with the inscription “value in silver”). ‘About 1729 banknotes began to be printed’ [2] .

Paper money could be issued by central banks. They also supervised his supply. At first, there was a rule for covering the money in the aggregate, which meant that the value of the money in circulation had to correspond to the value of the stored aggregate.

The problem was that in fast-growing societies demand for money became greater than the amount of banknotes and coins issued. Therefore, the principle of nominalism was introduced, according to which "money is only the name of an abstract monetary unit, given by the State by the relevant legal act.

The nominalistic money theory bases the value of money on the basis of social product, i.e. the value of all goods and services produced in a given economy. According to this principle, money is an artificial social convention." [3] .

The next point of “evolution” of money was the emergence of cashless bank money. It took the form of records on bank accounts. "Banks, as well as other credit institutions, have started creating bank money, including through loans, putting cash-free money at the disposal of customers" [4] . The turnover of this type of money consisted of the transfer from the account to the billing account. "Instruments" allowing this type of turnover were mainly cheques and bills.

But that is not the end. At one point, payment cards and credit cards also appeared, which slowly began to replace checks. There was a digital form of cash (so-called software money), for which only a suitable agreement with the bank (or another institution issuing electronic money) was sufficient. [5]

Unfortunately, the long history of money development was also accompanied by its forgerys. This is understandable in its own way – money as a means of payment is one Of the things most people want. That is why it can be said: “The fraud of money is one The oldest crime. Originally treated as fraud’ [6] .

In time, they began to be regarded as ‘crimen laessae maiestatis’, i.e. a crime directed against the majesty of the state. Finally, counterfeiting of money became a crime, the subject of which was “economic turnaround in the country” [7] .

How was the problem of counterfeiting regulated in Polish law? The following will briefly be presented the types of crimes included in the Criminal Code with 1932 (Journal of Laws of 1932, item 571) and the Criminal Code with 1969 (Journal of Laws of 1969, item 94).

It is worth noting that the Criminal Code with 1932 was first The penal code in Poland “because Polish criminal law was not codified during the pre-trial period, but enacted in 1818 r. Code of punishment, used in the Kingdom of Poland to 1847 no longer in force in an independent Polish country’ [8] .

In Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Code with 1932 the following provisions were laid down:

• • 175 concerning the offence of falsifying Polish or foreign gold or paper money, as well as bearer documents containing an obligation to pay capital, interest or interest in profits or to establish participation in the company,
• • 176 talking about the crime of reducing the content of gold in Polish or foreign money,
• • 177 concerning the circulation of counterfeit money or security (and the acceptance or storage of transport for this purpose),
• • 178 concerning the circulation of counterfeit money or security received as genuine or full value,
• • 179 concerning the drawing up, acquisition, or storage of technical measures for counterfeiting of money or securities,
• • 180 concerning entering into an agreement with other persons in order to commit the acts mentioned above Article 175(176)(177) (section 2 This Article indicates who was not subject to a penalty and under what conditions were not subject to a penalty,
• • 181 concerning the forgery of an official value mark for use or circulation (and the storage or acquisition of such a mark),
• • 182 concerning the removal of signs of redemption from the official value mark for use or circulation (and the storage or acquisition of such a mark),
• • 183 concerning the forgery of official marks in order to be used in public circulation,
• • 184 concerning the drawing up, acquisition or storage of technical measures for the purpose of falsifying official marks,
• • 185 concerning the forgery of a legalised measuring tool (and its use or storage),
• • 186 referring to the basis for ruling on the forfeiture of counterfeit money, securities and securities and marks, as well as measuring tools, as well as technical measures, even though not owned by the perpetrator.

Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Code with 1969 include provisions laying down the following offences:

• • 227 section 1 concerning the forgery of Polish or foreign money or bearer document entitled to receive the sum of money or goods disposed of for foreign currency values,
• • 227 section 2 concerning the circulation of counterfeit money, securities or the aforementioned documents,
• • 227 section 3 talking about preparations to commit action with Article 227(1) or Article 227(2),
• • 228 concerning the circulation of counterfeit money, security, or the aforementioned document obtained as being genuine,
• • 229 concerning the forgery of an official value mark,
• • 230 concerning the forgery of an official mark to determine the authorisation, payment of a tax fee or the outcome of the examination,
• • 231 concerning the forgery of legalised measuring tools (and their use or storage for use),
• • 232 concerning the forfeiture of counterfeit or counterfeit money, other means of payment, documents and marks, and measuring tools, as well as technical measures which were used to commit the above crimes, even if not owned by the perpetrator.

At the same time, it should be mentioned that the Act of 12 October 1994 on protection of trade and amending certain provisions of criminal law (Journal of Laws of 1994, item 615) amended the content of the above mentioned Article 227(1) Criminal Code with 1969 As a result of this amendment, the provision covered the protection of means of payment and documents entitling to receive the sum of money or containing an obligation to pay capital, interest, share of profits or a declaration of participation in the company.

In this way, the criminal protection of securities was also extended to contract documents and roll-call documents. This regulation was later moved to Article 310(1) Act of 6 June 1997, Criminal Code (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1138, as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code, or k.k.).

Crimes against the trading of money and securities in the Criminal Code with 1997

Contrary to the title of Chapter XXXVII k.k., which reads "crimes against the trading of money and securities", this chapter defines more types of crime than only those two. In addition, there is also a crime of disseminating false information or non-disclosure of information about the beneficial status of the tenderer in the documentation relating to the trading of securities (which he speaks of) Article 311 k.k.), counterfeiting or alteration of an official value mark (Article 313 k.k.), counterfeiting or reprocessing of official marks (Article 314 k.k.), and counterfeiting or processing of a legalised measuring or testing tool (Article 315 k.k.).

In the above provisions you can notice a similarity to the provisions of both the Criminal Code with 1969, as well as those from the Criminal Code with 1932 This is due to the fact that "the typification of these offences contained in previous Criminal Codes has been accepted, recognising it as synthetic and, in principle, comprehensive, and merely making some rationalisation of certain threats according to the general trend of the new Code" [9] .

It also draws attention to the change in the title of a chapter in relation to the titles of chapters with a similar scope of offences in the previous codes. Previous titles talked about crimes of counterfeiting money, securities, etc. Meanwhile, the title of Chapter XXXVII k.k. emphasizes the typification of crimes against money and securities trading.

The location of Chapter XXXVII k.k. is also important; this is the last chapter in the special part, before the military part, and after the chapter on crimes against economic turnover.

For comparison in the Criminal Code with 1932 the offences of money counterfeiting were between the chapter on crimes against religious feelings (Chapter XXVI) and the chapter on crimes against documents (Chapter XXVIII).

However, in the Criminal Code with 1969 they were located after Chapter XXX, which dealt with economic crime and before Chapter XXXII concerning crimes against the activities of state and social institutions.

Chapter XXXVII k.k. defines 23 types of crimes against the trading of money and securities. Article 310(1) k.k. defines two offences, namely:

• • Counterfeiting or reworking
• - Polish or foreign money,
• - the Polish or foreign money mark, which has been established as a legal tender, but has not yet been put into circulation,
• - other means of payment, or a document authorising the receipt of the sum of money, or containing an obligation to pay capital, interest, interest or profit, or a statement of participation in a company or of money,
• - other means of payment and removal of signs of redemption from the above documents.

In turn section 2 the same Article defines three types of crime:

• • the circulation of money, other means of payment or a cash mark or a document specified in section 1,
• • receiving, storing, transporting, transferring, sending the abovementioned documents, in order to circulate them,
• • helping to dispose of or hide the above documents [10] .

Article 310(3) k.k. and Article 310(4) k.k. refer respectively to: a minor accident of the aforementioned offences and preparation for the aforementioned offences.

The next offence in Chapter XXXVII k.k. is the dissemination of false information, or the silence of information on the estate of the tenderer relevant for the acquisition of securities in the securities trading documentation (Article 311 k.k.).

Article 312 k.k. relates to the circulation of counterfeit or converted money, other means of payment or security (which have been received as real).

Article 313 k.k. relates to crimes related to the official value mark, namely: counterfeiting, counterfeiting and erasure of signs of redemption for use or circulation (Article 313(1) k.k.). Section 2 of the same article specifies three types of offences, i.e. the release of a falsified (i.e. a counterfeit or a misconception, or with a deleted sign of redemption) of an official value mark in circulation, acquisition or use, storage for circulation.

Article 314 k.k. talks about two types of offences: counterfeiting or reprocessing of an official mark to determine the authorisation or the outcome of the investigation and the use of objects bearing counterfeit or reworked marks.

Article 315 k.k. in turn talks about third types of crime, i.e. counterfeiting or alteration of a legalised measuring or testing tool (section 1), the use and storage of such a forged or counterfeit economic tool for commercial use (section 2).

Article 316 k.k. does not specify any type of crime, but it determines the basis for the decision on the forfeiture of counterfeits, misdemeanors, documents and marks (and with the sign of redemption removed), as well as the converted or forged measuring tools and objects for the commission of the aforementioned offences. It is worth noting that they are forfeited, even if they are not the property of the perpetrator.

The penalties in the above provisions are relatively marked, i.e. the type of penalty is defined along with its lower and upper limits. From these offences only those specified in Article 310(1) k.k. is a crime; the others are transgressions.

Offence of counterfeiting of money and other means of payment or equivalent documents

To begin with, it is worth mentioning that fraud of means of payment refers to two articles, i.e. Article 310 and Article 312. However, in accordance with the title of this Article, only the Article 310 k.k., as he speaks of falsification itself, and Article 312 k.k. speaks about the circulation of counterfeit money and other means of payment.

Individual types of crime included in Article 310 k.k. were mentioned above, so it is not worth repeating them here. However, it should be mentioned that there is a dispute over whether the type of crime with Article 310(3) k.k. is the primary type or the preferred type [11] .

On the one hand, are of the view that a minor accident, expressed in the above mentioned section 3 is not a separate type of prohibited act, but a "institution consisting in adopting different rules of the statutory penalty measure and determining another statutory threat by the legislator" [12] .

However, according to a different view, this minor case is a privileged type.

System references

Constitution of the Republic of Poland

None of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (hereinafter: the Constitution of the Republic of Poland) explicitly mention the protection of Polish money from counterfeiting. However, there are several provisions that may highlight the importance of protecting means of payment against counterfeiting.

He is like that. Article 227(1) The Constitution of Poland, according to which the National Bank of Poland is the central bank of the state and has the exclusive right to issue money.

In turn Article 216(2) The Constitution of the Republic of Poland to the Treasury, the NBP and other state-owned legal persons grants the right to issue securities on the terms and in the manner specified in the Act. It is also important to include these provisions in Chapter X, which is devoted to public finances.

However, perhaps even more important, the rules are Article 20 and Article 22 Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

first of them indicates that one from the pillars of the social market economy is economic freedom and second allows the possibility of limiting this freedom, but only by means of legislation and for important public interest.

It can therefore be considered that, through the principle of freedom of economic activity, the legislator is obliged, inter alia, to protect money and other means of payment against counterfeiting in order to ensure security and certainty of economic turnover.

Counterfeiting money in international law

In international law, the issue of money counterfeiting is addressed by the International Convention on the fight against money counterfeiting together with the Protocol and the Optional Protocol thereto, signed in Geneva 20 April 1929 Poland joined in 1934

By Article 3 This Convention should be punished as common offences:

• • any fraudulent making or processing of money regardless of the means used to achieve the objective,
• • cheating on counterfeit money into circulation,
• • intended to put into circulation, to bring into the country or to take false money or to supply it with the knowledge that it is false,
• • attempted and deliberate participation in these crimes,
• • fraudulently making, receiving, or equipping yourself with tools or other objects intended by nature to make false money or to make money.

However, according to Article 5 There must be no difference between penalties for counterfeiting of domestic money and for counterfeiting of foreign money.

Counterfeiting money in EU law

Against the background of EU law, attention should be paid primarily to Directive 2014/62 of 15 May 2014 on criminal measures to protect the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting, replacing the Council Framework Decision Directive 2000/383/JHA (Official Journal of the European Union L, No. 315 to 14 November 2012 p. 57). It updates and develops the Council Framework Decision Directive 2000/383/JHA and (like its predecessor) is complementary to the provisions of the Convention against Counterfeiting Money from 1929 By Article 3 Directive 2014/62 States must take the necessary measures to ensure that the following acts committed intentionally are punishable as a criminal offence:

• • any forgery or fraud of money, regardless of the means employed,
• • putting in circulation counterfeit money for fraud,
• • import, export, transport, taking or obtaining counterfeit money, in order to put it into circulation, while knowing that it is false,

• production, acceptance, acquisition or possession for fraud:

• • tools, objects, computer programs and data and any other means specifically adapted for counterfeiting or money processing, or
• • security, such as holograms, watermarks or other components of money, which are used to protect them from counterfeiting.

Furthermore, the acts mentioned above points 1 and 3 to be punishable also for banknotes or coins produced or produced by legal devices or materials in violation of the rules or conditions under which competent authorities may issue banknotes or coins. In addition, the above acts are also intended to be criminal for banknotes and coins not yet issued but to be put into circulation as legal tender.

Type and individual subject matter of protection

A typical subject of protection, as is apparent from Chapter XXXVII of the Code, is the trading of money and securities. K.k.'s provisions are intended to "ensure protection only to the correct, in accordance with the applicable legal rules, of the trading of money and securities" [13] . On the other hand, in a broader sense, the good is protected by "the correct, legal and lawful economic turnover" [14] .

On the other hand, the direct object of the protection is the reliability and veracity of money (both Polish and foreign), other means of payment, as well as documents entitling to receive the sum of money, the payment of capital, interest, participation in profits or determining participation in the company.

In that case, the subject of the protection of offences contained in Article 310 k.k. is “trust for authenticity, which is traded, Polish or foreign money, other means of payment, and for documents that are securities, security, certainty of this trade” [15] .

Crime

There is no doubt that the crime of counterfeiting money, other means of payment and securities is a common crime. This means that it can be committed by any person who is able to bear the penalty.

It is also worth noting that it is irrelevant whether "there was a specific legal obligation on the perpetrator to prevent (prevent) falsification of these assets, or no such obligation on the perpetrator" [16] .

Moreover, with criminal liability for this crime, it does not matter whether specific qualifications are necessary to counterfeit or counterfeit money.

Subject-matter of the offence

The subject party to the crime is the mental phenomena that the offender is accompanied by when he commits a specific act. In fact, they express the mental attitude of the perpetrator to the act. There is no doubt that “the element of will (and therefore the mental element is an essential component of the action” [17] .

Therefore, in addition to the behaviour of the perpetrator, the mental attitude of the perpetrator to a particular act should also be taken into account, and this one may rely on intent or involuntaryness. Therefore, before discussing the party to the offence in question Article 310 k.k.

both forms of intentional and involuntary guilt must be presented.

By Article 9(1) k.k. is a deliberate fault if the perpetrator intends to commit a given prohibited act. In this case, the intention may occur in two types, i.e. either as a direct intention (dolus directus) or as a possible intention (dolus evenualis).

We have a direct intention when the perpetrator wants to commit the crime. "Determining the will of the perpetrator as wanting a certain prohibited act, we assume that it covers with its consciousness all the marks of the act" [18] .

In turn, the direct intention distinguishes the immediate intention (dolus directus repentinus) and the direct intention considered (dolus directus preemeditatus). The difference between them can be inferred from the names themselves. In the event of a direct sudden intent, the perpetrator shall decide to commit the crime in a short time.

On the other hand, a thought - out intent occurs when the perpetrator long ponders about making a decision, and he often even prepares a plan to commit a crime.

The direct intention does not include the general intention (dolus generalis), the characteristic of which is that the perpetrator does not specify the effect he wants to have [19] .

He's still distinguished. one the form of guilt, i.e. the intention to supposedly – possibly (dolus quasi – evenualis). It means that the perpetrator “in uncertain terms one of the marks of the forbidden act “wants” to behave within the verb mark.” [20]

Possible intent is when the perpetrator provides for the possibility of committing a prohibited act and agrees to it. Thus, it is different from direct intent that the perpetrator is not sure that the act will be a crime; moreover, in this case, the perpetrator does not want to commit a prohibited act as much as he simply agrees that he can commit it.

By Article 9(2) k.k. a prohibited act is committed unintentionally if the offender commits the act as a result of failure to exercise the caution required under the circumstances, even though the possibility of committing the act provided for or could have foreseen it. Involuntary guilt can be either reckless or reckless.

We are dealing with recklessness when the perpetrator deliberately violates the precautionary principle, in addition to providing for the possibility of committing a given prohibited act, but at the same time hopes that he will avoid it. Therefore, recklessness differs from the intention of possibly believing that a given action will fail to fulfil the prohibited act.

In turn, negligence is a situation where the offender does not foresee the possibility of committing a forbidden act, even though he can foresee it. Therefore, unlike previous forms of guilt, here the perpetrator does not even "want" or "predict" but does not even exploit his intellectual abilities, so he does not change his behaviour, which fulfils the character of the forbidden act.

All actions specified in Article 310 k.k. are intentional crimes. Therefore, the perpetrator must want to commit them or anticipate the possibility of committing them – to accept it. Direct intent occurs only in Article 310(1) k.k.

Note that this provision does not matter what the purpose of counterfeit money, other means of payment or securities is [21] . No such objective in the characteristics Article 310(1) k.k.

"is a natural consequence of the assumption that the offence of counterfeiting of money, other means of payment or securities is directed against the safety of financial transactions" [22] .

In the case of an offence specified in Article 310(2) k.k., it is necessary to determine whether the perpetrator, taking counterfeit money, other means of payment or securities, is aware that they are false and accepts them precisely in order to circulate.

If he was aware of this, his conduct then exhaustively satisfies the elements of this offence. On the other hand, if he accepts them without knowing that they are false and then puts them in circulation so as not to suffer a loss, his conduct then exhaustively satisfies the elements of the offence under Article 312 k.k.

Crime from Article 310(2) k.k. ‘in the form of ‘letting go’ does not require direct intent to be attributed to the perpetrator’ [23] .

Subject of the offence

The party to the offence shall consist of:

• • act of the entity, i.e. its behaviour,
• • the effect of action,
• • time and place of action,
• • the situation in which the action was committed,
• • the method of committing and the subject matter of execution of the act [24] .

The most important element, and at the same time the sine qua non of every crime, is the behaviour of the perpetrator.

In the crime of Article 310(1) We're dealing with three criminal behaviour, i.e. forging, processing and removing signs of redemption.

Counterfeit is “the creation of a new object having the appearance of genuine money, another means of payment or a document referred to in section 1” [25] . And depending on the method of forging such a counterfeit object may have a different degree of quality, i.e. from an illusion similar to the original, to an inept forgery.

"For the realization of this verb mark [i.e. forgery—M.Z.], it is sufficient that an inexperienced man cannot immediately be convinced of the false object" [26] . Therefore, it is possible to attempt unsuccessfully in the event of counterfeiting, i.e. when such forgery is apparent on first A glance.

But even then, putting such a fake in circulation can be effective (e.g. when a transaction takes place in a poorly lit room and it is not possible to notice that there is something wrong with a given payment agent).

The conversion is a change in the appearance of an authentic object, e.g. a banknote in such a way that it has a higher denomination.

„Removing the signs of redemption involves removing such signs from the document or making it invisible’ [27] .

Article 310(2) lists seven punishable acts, i.e. circulation, acceptance, storage, transport, transfer, transfer and assistance to disposal or to conceal.

Letting go is the introduction of a counterfeit, processed item or such with a deleted sign of redemption. ‘The fact that the legal form of the action is taken, in particular whether it is paid or not remains irrelevant’ [28] . The most common characters of letting go are the payment of counterfeit money, or the change of money, and simply a donation. This kind of circulation will also be the presentation of a falsified object “for testing”.

„The adoption of a forgery is only punishable if the perpetrators are accompanied by an intention to put it into circulation. It is about taking over the power of the subject’ [29] .

In contrast, storing is the behavior of power over a falsified object for a time. It should be noted that the Act does not introduce even a general time of such storage, even the lower limit from which storage can already be mentioned. This may be both long and short.

To specify what it means to sell or hide a counterfeit, processed item or such with a deleted sign of redemption, it proves helpful Article 18(3) k.k. Therefore, such aid may be considered to be, in particular, the provision of the tool or means of transport needed to commit the offence, the provision of advice or information, and the facilitation of the offence by omission to another person.

The concept of money in Article 310(1) k.k.

The problem with defining the concept of money is the lack of its legal definition. According to Jerzy Skorupki, the concept of money can be considered in a broad and strict sense. ‘In a broad sense, any payment appropriations in circulation shall be considered as money’ [30] , i.e.

banknotes and coins (both domestic and foreign), bank tickets, bills, cheques, bonds and other types of securities. In the strict sense, these are "only those payment measures to which the State confers the power to decommence monetary liabilities" [31] . Such funds are cash marks issued by the National Bank of Poland.

By Article 31 Act of 29 August 1997 about the National Bank of Poland (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2022, item 492, as amended), Money signs of the Republic of Poland are banknotes and coins for gold and coins.

Jerzy Skorupka also emphasizes that cash marks are not the same as cash units. These. first are only media (in the form of banknotes and coins) of these second, i.e. abstract meters of a certain value considered by the State to be a means of payment. This makes it possible to divide the monetary unit into two forms, i.e.

cash (when an entity is included in a particular money mark) and non-cash money, e.g. electronic money (i.e. ‘tipped off’ from a cash mark). This in turn leads to the conclusion that the subject of counterfeiting from Article 310 k.k.

can become both cash and non-cash money, because “the actions are directed towards a material medium by which units of circulation money and non-cash money circulate in trade. This applies to both Polish money, foreign money and other means of payment" [32] .

Jacek Kędzierski entered a polemic with the author, claiming in the article “Notes on the concept of money in crime with Article 310 k.k.» (in connection with J. Skorupki article)’ [33] , that the subject of the enforcement of the offence with Article 310(1) k.k.

may be only Polish or foreign money, in the form of cash marks in circulation; a separate offence of falsification of an electronic money instrument should therefore be introduced in k.k.. However, I think that would be definitely unnecessary.

I agree with Jerzy Skorupka that both electronic money and banking money are the subject of an executive crime with Article 310(1) k.k. Despite the fact that they are intangible, i.e. they only express a certain value equivalent to cash marks, they are closely linked to material media (i.e.

payment cards or electronic money instruments) which can already be counterfeited and reworked. The same is true of banknotes and coins. They are counterfeited and processed, not the value they express [34] .

Minority accident

Article 310(3) provides for a minor accident for crimes with section 1 and section 2 the same article. A minor accident should be understood to mean all the circumstances which reduce the social harm of the act which satisfies the above mentioned offences.

The party to the action must therefore take into account: ‘the type of legal good, the degree of danger of the good or the extent of the damage caused, the possibility of restitution of the legal good, and the nature and relevance of the breach of the rule of procedure’ [35] .

The motives and motives of the offender’s conduct and his mental attitude toward the act must also be taken into account on the subject side.

Criminal forms of crime

Preparation

Article 16(1) defines the preparation as a situation where the offender, in order to commit a prohibited act, takes steps to create the conditions for the action to be undertaken directly to be carried out. In addition, it lists examples of preparatory activities, [36] i.e. entering into agreement with another person, obtaining or equipping funds, collecting information or drawing up an action plan. Therefore, the preparation can only be achieved by concrete action.

By Article 16(2) k.k. preparation can only be punishable if it is k.k. Therefore, Article 310(4) k.k. provides for the criminal preparation of crimes from Article 310(1)(2) k.k. This includes “only actions taken to commit a crime in one forms’ [37] specified in Article 310(1)(2) k.k.

Such criminal preparation is, for example, the storage of technical means intended for counterfeiting in the future. Therefore, the perpetrator does not even have to take further steps to counterfeit the money or to turn it around.

Effort

Actions that precede the offence with Article 310(1)(2) k.k. should be eligible as an attempt to commit a crime or as a preparation for the offence, which according to Article 310(4) k.k. is criminal. However, the problem is the distinction between the attempt and the attempt of the inept crime identified in Article 310(1) k.k.

According to some authors, we are dealing with an attempt ineptly when anyone can recognize the counterfeit or counterfeit of a given money, other means of payment or security under normal conditions, regardless of his state of knowledge regarding the money or other items in question from Article 310(1) k.k.

According to Jerzy Skorupki, assessing whether a given behavior is an attempt or an attempt inept depends on the situation. Poor quality forgery can be qualified as an attempted inept or attempted, or even as a criminal offence with Article 310(1) k.k. "After all, even inept counterfeit or counterfeit money, etc. (e.g. due to insufficient skills of the perpetrator) so that everyone will easily realize that the subject has been falsified, must face a criminal reaction" [38] .

Convention

Article 310(1) k.k. is a special provision in relation to the general provision Article 270(1) k.k. This general provision provides for criminal liability for the forgery or reproduction of a document in order to be used as authentic (fine, sentence of restriction of liberty or imprisonment from 3 months to years 5.).

In turn Article 310(1) k.k.

provides for a much stricter penalty (the deprivation of freedom for a period not less than years) 5 Or punishment 25 years of imprisonment) for forging or processing specific documents, such as documents entitling to receive the sum of money or containing the obligation to pay capital, interest, interest or profit or to establish participation in the company.

In case of Article 310(1) k.k. and Article 286(1) k. or section 3 k.k. there may be a cumulative coincidence of rules where counterfeit or counterfeit money, other means of payment or the documents referred to in Article 310(1) k.k. ‘the perpetrator of the circulation in such a way that, in order to obtain the property benefit, it will lead another person to an adverse regulation by misleading it or by exploiting it’ [39] .

There may also be a situation where a coincidence occurs Article 310(2) k.k. and Article 312 k.k. This will be the case if the perpetrator puts counterfeit or counterfeit money, other means of payment or the documents referred to in Article 310(1) k.k. and at the same time “of falseness one of them he learned after receiving it.” [40] .

Summary

The offence of money counterfeiting strikes directly at the security and certainty of economic trade, both domestic and international. Therefore, both the certainty of economic turnover as well as the authenticity of money and other means of payment require special protection, both from international and EU law as well as Polish law.

I believe that in the current form Polish rules regulate the problem of counterfeiting of both Polish and foreign money and other means of payment. No separate regulations are needed to protect against counterfeiting, e.g. payment cards, as this is already regulated in Article 310(1) k.k.

It is worth noting that the fight against money counterfeiting, such as improving the security of money or the criminal rules themselves, is as important as educating the public about money security. Especially at a time when it is not just the possession or absence of watermarks that determine the authenticity of banknotes.

Summary

The offence of counterfeiting or amending means of payment, particularly money, poses a threat to the security and security of money trading. Therefore, in this article, the offence is presented from a legal and criminal standpoint. First, the historical background to the development of money and crimes against the trading of money and securities is discussed. On the other hand, second part of the article deals in detail Article 310 Penal Code.

Summary

The crime of counterfeiting or altering means of payment, especially money, is a Threat to the certificate and security of money transactions. Therefore, in this article, the above-mentioned offense has been presented from the legal and criminal point of view. In the first part, the historical background of money development and crime against the trading of money and securities are discussed. The second part of the article, on the other hand, deals in details with Article 310 of the Criminal Code.