Results found: 1

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: podrobienie zabytku

Sort By:

Limit search:

PRZESTĘPSTWO FAŁSZERSTWA ZABYTKU

100%

Gadecki B.

Ochrona Zabytków

2008

issue 1

107-110

In the present-day world practically everything which a collector is willing to pay for can be forged. Prior to 2006 the suitable doctrine noticed that both the penal code and the Statute on the protection of historical monuments lack pertinent regulations that would make it possible to effectively combat art forgery. Neither the redesigning nor the counterfeiting of a monument were punishable, and only the stage of inciting a person to an unfavourable use of his own property or that of another by misleading that person or the exploitation of an error or the incapacity for a suitable comprehension of the undertaken activity, was penalised by imprisonment (six months to eight years for the crime of counterfeiting). The sole exception was the forging of a signature on a painting, which is simultaneously an historical monument, since from the viewpoint of penal law such a signature constitutes a document. Felonies of this category are dealt with in article 270, paragraph 1 of the penal code. The Statute of 24 February 2006 on changing the Statute on the protection of historical monuments has been supplemented with, i.a. article 109a on the counterfeiting or forging of monuments and introducing a fine, imprisonment up to two years, or the limitation of freedom. According to the cited article, the act of counterfeiting an historical monument consists of endowing an object that is not a monument with the appearance of a monument, thus producing an imitation pretending to be an historical monument. This crime is to be understood as the production of an object while maintaining appearances that it is an authentic work of the given author. The redesigning of a monument consists of granting it an appearance different from the original, which could entail damaging the monument. Both crimes will be punishable, however, only in those instances when the perpetrator acted in order to use the monument for the purposes of trafficking in historical monuments, which could constitute a considerable problem for the prosecuting agencies, compelled to prove such an intention on the part of the felon.

Refine search results

1 Ochrona Zabytków

1 Gadecki B.

1 2008

Search results

PRZESTĘPSTWO FAŁSZERSTWA ZABYTKU