Skip to main content

Catfishing – jako przejaw przestępstwa kradzieży tożsamości

Gądzik, Zuzanna (2024) — Krytyka Prawa

DOI: 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.735
Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Poland
Tags:   catfishing, identity theft, social media, criminal law, online impersonation, fraud, grooming, deepfakes, online fraud, cybersecurity

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

This doctrinal legal analysis examines Polish criminal law governing identity theft (Article 190a section 2 of the Penal Code) and related offences. The article defines catfishing, applies statutory elements to variants of impersonation, and discusses potential liability for fraud, phishing/information offences, grooming, and stalking. Catfishing involves stealing another person's existing identity or creating a false identity and using it as one's own for financial or personal abuse. The paper concludes that separate criminal-law rules for catfishing are not currently necessary and gives priority to prevention through safe internet use and awareness of offline consequences. This is a legal-conceptual analysis rather than an empirical study.

Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)

Catfishing’s exact scale is difficult to assess: creation of false social-media profiles is not itself criminalized, so some conduct is absent from crime statistics. Underreporting is also likely because many people whose data or image are used do not know about it. The diversity of offender conduct further impedes uniform assessment and decisions about criminalization.

Methods (AI-Generated)

Doctrinal legal analysis of Polish criminal law governing identity theft (Article 190a §2 of the Penal Code) and related offences. The article defines catfishing, applies statutory elements to variants of impersonation, and discusses potential liability for fraud, phishing/information offences, grooming, and stalking. It also notes civil remedies and platform account-integrity rules.

Limitations (AI-Generated)

This is a legal-conceptual analysis rather than an empirical study. It cannot determine catfishing prevalence because false-profile creation is not separately criminalized, relevant conduct may be absent from criminal statistics, and victims may not know impersonation occurred or report it. The broad variety of offender behaviours also makes a single legal assessment difficult.

Future Work (AI-Generated)

The paper does not state a formal research agenda. It supports research to establish catfishing’s actual prevalence and reporting levels, because false-profile creation is not separately criminalized and many impersonated people are unaware. It also supports examining whether evolving platforms, applications, and deepfake techniques create legal or preventive needs beyond current arrangements.

Related Research Insights

See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.

AI-Generated Content Notice

The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.

Found a possible error? Request a correction.