The Act on Counteracting Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism imposes upon obligated institutions (including banks) the obligation, crucial in relation to the other requirements specified in the Act in question, to implement appropriate procedures enabling the identification of clients or their actual beneficiaries as Politically Exposed Persons (PEP). The identification of a client as a PEP status person means that increased financial security measures need to be applied to him/her and his/her family members and close associates on account of potentially greater risk of money laundering, financing of terrorism or corruption. Consequently, in the author’s view and in light of the provisions of the Act on counteracting money laundering, a Sejm Deputy and his/her immediate family members may be obligated by the bank to submit a declaration on the source of the client’s property and assets at the client’s disposal as part of business relationships or transactions.
The author of the opinion indicates that individual guarantee is a non-custodial preventive measure used in the course of criminal proceedings and a trustworthy person is a person who is trustworthy – who guarantees the fulfilment of the obligations imposed on him/her in the bail decision, as well as ensures the fulfilment of procedural obligations imposed on the defendant. The doctrine of criminal procedure indicates that persons who hold functions obtained by direct election, i.e., for example, deputies, senators, or mayors of cities, may become trustworthy persons.
The author analyses the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. She considers the introduction of the concept of “sexual autonomy” proposed in the bill as unnecessary, due to the existence of the notion of human freedom in the sexual sphere, considered both on a negative and positive level. The bill assumes, inter alia, a change in the statutory features of the crime of rape, which may result in decriminalization of certain cases that are currently covered by the “deception” features in the crime of rape. The author raises substantive doubts about the bill, which in her opinion require further legislative work.
Pursuant to the Code of Penal Procedure, any person, upon having learned about the commission of a crime prosecuted ex officio, bears a social obligation to notify a Public Prosecutor or the Police about it. In case of certain crimes that social obligation is transformed into a legal one concerning an immediate notification to law enforcement authorities about the commission, attempt or preparation of any of these crimes. Failure to fulfil the legal obligation to notify law enforcement authorities shall result in committing a crime punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment.
The subject of the petition is to change the sanction specified in Article 1 of the Decree is such a way that it would modify the sanction to become a differentiated one. In the author’s opinion, despite the fact that the penalty of life imprisonment for the crime specified in the August Decree is strictly defined, the court can differentiate it, in particular to convicting to 25 years of imprisonment. It should also be borne in mind that the probability of the actual application of the sanction specified in the August Decree is minimal.
A commune has the right to freely shape the communal waste collection system in relation to owners of uninhabited real estate where communal waste is generated. In the event that a resolution regarding this matter is passed on by a commune council, a property owner has the option of being excluded from the system. Such an exclusion obliges the owner of the property to conclude a contract with the communal organisational unit collecting communal waste. The implementation of this statutory obligation imposed on property owners is subject to control by a head of commune, mayor or a president of a city.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.