sentence-transformers How to use IoannisKat1/multilingual-e5-large-new with sentence-transformers:
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer
model = SentenceTransformer("IoannisKat1/multilingual-e5-large-new")
sentences = [
"When did the victims give away credentials?",
"According to the provision of Article 386 paragraph 1 of the Greek Penal Code,\n\n\"Whoever, with the intent to obtain for themselves or another an unlawful pecuniary benefit, causes damage to another’s property by persuading someone to act, omit, or tolerate something through the knowing misrepresentation of false facts as true, or through the unlawful concealment or suppression of true facts, shall be punished by imprisonment of at least three months, and if the damage caused is particularly large, by imprisonment of at least two years.\"\n\nFrom this provision it follows that, for the crime of fraud to be established, the following elements are required:\n\na) The intent of the perpetrator to obtain for themselves or another an unlawful pecuniary benefit, without it being necessary that the benefit actually materialize;\n\nb) The knowing misrepresentation of false facts as true, or the unlawful concealment or suppression of true facts, as a result of which—serving as the causal factor—someone is deceived and proceeds to an act, omission, or acquiescence that is detrimental to themselves or another; and\n\nc) Damage to another person’s property, as defined under civil law, which must be causally linked to the deceptive acts or omissions of the perpetrator. It is not required that the person deceived and the person who suffered the damage be the same individual.\n\nThe term “facts”, within the meaning of the above provision, refers to real circumstances relating to the past or present, and not to those that will occur in the future, such as mere promises or contractual obligations. However, when such promises or obligations are accompanied by false assurances and representations of other false facts referring to the present or the past, in such a manner as to create the impression of future fulfillment based on a false present situation fabricated by the perpetrator, who has already formed the decision not to fulfill their obligation, the crime of fraud is established.\n\nThe term “property” refers to the totality of a person’s economic assets that possess monetary value, while damage to property means its reduction—specifically, the difference between the monetary value the property had before the disposition caused by the fraudulent conduct and the value remaining after it. Property damage exists even if the victim possesses an active claim for restitution.\n\nThe time of commission of the fraud is considered to be the moment when the perpetrator acted and completed their fraudulent conduct, namely when they made the false representations that deceived the victim or a third party. Any subsequent moment at which the victim’s damage actually occurred—thereby completing the fraud—or the time when the victim carried out the harmful act or omission, is irrelevant.",
"Voice phishing involves manipulating victims over the phone. Attackers pose as bank officials or authorities and use intimidation to extract financial details.\n\nScenario:\n- Victims are coerced into giving away PINs, passwords, or other credentials under false pretenses of legal or financial emergencies.",
"According to the provision of Article 386 paragraph 1 of the Greek Penal Code,\n\n\"Whoever, with the intent to obtain for themselves or another an unlawful pecuniary benefit, causes damage to another’s property by persuading someone to act, omit, or tolerate something through the knowing misrepresentation of false facts as true, or through the unlawful concealment or suppression of true facts, shall be punished by imprisonment of at least three months, and if the damage caused is particularly large, by imprisonment of at least two years.\"\n\nFrom this provision, it follows that, for the crime of fraud to be established, the following elements are required:\n\na) The intent of the perpetrator to obtain for themselves or another an unlawful pecuniary benefit, without requiring that the benefit actually materialize;\n\nb) The knowing misrepresentation of false facts as true, or the unlawful concealment or suppression of true facts, as a result of which—serving as the causal factor—someone is deceived and performs an act, omission, or acquiescence; and\n\nc) Damage to another’s property, according to civil law, which must be causally connected to the perpetrator’s deceptive acts or omissions. It is not required that the deceived person and the person who suffered the loss be the same.\n\nThe term “facts,” within the meaning of the above provision, refers to real circumstances relating to the past or present, and not to those that will occur in the future, such as mere promises or contractual obligations. However, when such promises or obligations are accompanied by false assurances and representations of other false facts relating to the present or the past, in such a way as to create the impression of future fulfillment, based on a false present situation fabricated by the perpetrator—who has already made the decision not to fulfill their obligation—then the crime of fraud is established.\n\nThe term “property” denotes the totality of a person’s economic assets possessing monetary value, while damage to property refers to its reduction—specifically, the difference between the property’s monetary value before the disposition caused by the fraudulent conduct and its value afterward. Property damage exists even if the victim has an active claim for its restitution.\n\nThe time of commission of fraud is considered to be the moment when the perpetrator acted and completed the deceptive conduct, that is, when they made the false representations which deceived the victim or a third party. Any later time at which the victim’s financial loss occurred—thus completing the fraud—or the time when the harmful act or omission of the deceived person took place, is irrelevant.\n\nThe reference to multiple modes of commission of fraud (i.e., both the misrepresentation of false facts and the concealment of true ones) may create ambiguity and contradiction, unless it is made clear from the overall findings that the offense was committed in one particular manner, and that the reference to the other merely serves to define the intent (mens rea) of the perpetrator—specifically, that the representations were false.\n\nFurthermore, a conviction must contain the specific and well-reasoned justification required by Articles 93 paragraph 3 of the Constitution and 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The absence of such reasoning constitutes grounds for cassation (appeal) under Article 510 paragraph 1(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the judgment does not set out, with clarity, completeness, and consistency, the factual circumstances established by the evidence, upon which the court based its findings regarding the objective and subjective elements of the offense, the evidence supporting those findings, and the legal reasoning through which those facts were subsumed under the applicable substantive criminal provision.\n\nFor the existence of such reasoning, the explanatory and operative parts of the decision may complement each other, as they form a single, unified whole.\n\nThe existence of intent (dolus) does not generally need to be specially justified, since it is inherent in the will to bring about the factual circumstances constituting the objective elements of the offense, and it is presumed from their realization in each particular case—unless the law requires additional elements for criminal liability, such as the act being committed with knowledge of a specific circumstance (direct intent) or with the pursuit of a further purpose, i.e., the achievement of an additional result (offenses requiring a special subjective element).\n\nFurthermore, under Article 510 paragraph 1(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a misapplication of substantive criminal law also constitutes grounds for cassation. Such misapplication occurs when the trial court incorrectly applies the law to the facts it has found to be true, or when the violation occurs indirectly, namely when the reasoning of the judgment—comprising the combination of its factual and operative parts and relating to the elements and identity of the offense—contains ambiguities, contradictions, or logical gaps, rendering it impossible to verify, on appeal, whether the law was applied correctly. In such cases, the judgment lacks a lawful basis."
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities.shape)
# [4, 4] 
