This article presents considerations of the various legal institutions that make reaching the truth possible, on the other hand, those that reduce such possibility. This text also shows the influence of such institutions on cognitive possibilities of procedural bodies, as well as the advisability of the truth’s guarantees and limitations in criminal proceedings. After all, the truth is one of the values that are realized by the Polish system of criminal procedural law, and therefore the procedural law must create the possibility of reaching the truth. On the other hand, however, the truth may come into conflict with other values that are expressed by the Polish legal order, so that many times the truth must be limited or excluded for the sake of another value. The considerations are devoted to the relationship between the truth and other principles of the criminal process, institutions of the evidence law, the appellate process and procedural guarantees. This article outlines also the possible extra-legal threats for possibility of reaching the truth.

The aim of this article is to analyze the matrimonial frauds in criminological terms. To achieve this goal, various definitions of these particulary frauds, the scale of the phenomenon as well as its characteristics were discussed throughout the text. Also, the findings of research on online matrimonial frauds’ victims as well as the psychological strategies used by scammers were analyzed. The general conclusions have been drawn from the collected data.

This article discusses the issues of mechanisms related to the reduction of the multiplicity of assessments in comparison with issues related to the imposition of a penalty. The author outlines the problems that have arisen – on the basis of recent amendments – in order to answer the question: how the application of mechanisms for reducing the number of assessments affects on the punishment? At the same time, the author points out that aggravating and mitigating circumstances that have been added to the criminal act may additionally complicate the matter, after all – depending on the assessment – they will be features that modify prohibited acts, which will additionally aggravate criminal liability in each case.

This text is devoted to the institution of seizure of an object and a person from the perspective of the guarantees given to the right to property and personal freedom by the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (1997). In this study, the author focuses on the regulations of Article 64 and Article 41 of the Basic Law, pointing out to them a certain generality of solutions protecting the right to property, but also noting the specificity of the protection granted to the right to personal freedom. This paper also discusses the regulations of Article 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the latter analysis, a certain homogeneity of the guarantees of personal freedom and the guarantees of the right to defence is noted, as expressed in the right to legal aid and the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

The incidence of identity theft is escalating, especially in international contexts. Owing to the advancement of information technology, crimes associated with this issue are borderless and can manifest anywhere. The objective of this study is to scrutinize the regulatory frameworks concerning identity theft in foreign jurisdictions. The essay not only considers theoretical aspects but also practical and criminological dimensions of the issue in question. As an outcome of the examination of these regulatory models, it is hoped that proposals de lege ferenda (‘regarding future law’) can be articulated for the Hungarian legislature.
The initial segment of the article grapples with defining the phenomenon. There is no universally accepted definition of identity theft. Various terms are employed in foreign literature to describe the very phenomenon, including “identity theft” and “identity fraud.” Subsequent to the conceptual introduction, the study surveys the potential forms of identity theft.
In the subsequent sections of the article, the regulatory models of identity theft in common law jurisdictions are analyzed. The regulatory frameworks of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are subject to examination.
In the concluding section of the study, recommendations for future legislation (de lege ferenda) are proposed.

The Act of 7 July 2022 amending the Act – Criminal Code and certain other acts implemented the possibility of the imposition of irreducible deprivation of liberty for life by the court, with prohibition from conditional release (Article 77 § 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code). The legislator has provided the grounds for non-obligatory imposing this penalty. The first one (Article 77 § 3 of the Criminal Code) is based on formal grounds, such as: a previous valid sentence for a specific type of crime (against life and health, liberty, sexual freedom, public security or a public security of a terrorist character) to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for life or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for no less than 20 years. The second one (Article 77 § 4 of the Criminal Code)
includes perpetrator’s remaining at large will cause a permanent danger to the life, health, freedom or sexual freedom of others. The article presents an interpretation of the prerequisites for the application of Article 77 § 4 of the Criminal Code, indicates which sentencing directives should be prioritised by the court deciding on sentencing with the application of the provision in question, and analyses the possibility of applying Article 77 § 4 of the Criminal Code by a court adjudicating a joint sentence.