A Warsaw-based technology company receives a notification from the Prokuratura Regionalna (Regional Prosecutor's Office) that its chief financial officer is under formal investigation for alleged financial fraud. The board has 48 hours to decide whether to cooperate, retain independent counsel, or wait. Each choice carries consequences that may prove irreversible.
White-collar criminal defence for Polish executives involves a structured legal process governed by the Kodeks postępowania karnego (Code of Criminal Procedure, KPK) and the Kodeks karny (Penal Code, KK). Investigations can last between 6 months and 5 years before charges are formally presented. Personal liability of board members – including asset freezes and travel bans – may be imposed within the first 30 days of proceedings.
This guide covers the step-by-step procedure from investigation to trial, key deadlines, cost benchmarks, the most common executive mistakes, and three business scenarios drawn from manufacturing, IT, and foreign-investor contexts. It is structured for executives and their advisers who need to act quickly and correctly from day one.
How does a white-collar criminal investigation unfold in Poland?
The moment a Polish prosecutor opens a formal inquiry, a distinct procedural clock starts running. Under criminal procedure law, the investigation phase (postępowanie przygotowawcze) typically lasts 3 months, but extensions to 12 months – and beyond with court approval – are routine in financial crime cases. The National Court Register (KRS) records of the company are examined within days. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) may be notified in parallel if regulated activities are involved.
The investigation divides into two sub-phases. The preliminary inquiry (dochodzenie) applies to less serious offences and is handled by police. The full investigation (śledztwo) applies to financial crimes above a statutory threshold – roughly PLN 200,000 in alleged harm – and is led directly by prosecutors from the Prokuratura (Prosecutor's Office). Most white-collar cases involving executives fall into the second category.
At the investigation stage, the executive is initially a "person suspected" (podejrzany), not yet formally charged. This distinction matters. Statements made before formal charge are often used as evidence later. Retaining independent criminal defence counsel before the first interview – not after – is the single most consequential decision an executive can make. Waiting even 72 hours can close procedural options that remain open at the outset.
Key procedural milestones include:
- Notification of suspect status – triggers right to counsel immediately
- First interrogation – must be attended by defence counsel
- Presentation of charges (zarzuty) – marks transition to formal suspect
- Indictment (akt oskarżenia) – filed with the district or regional court
- Trial commencement – typically 6 to 18 months after indictment
What personal liability risks do Polish executives face?
Board liability in white-collar cases extends well beyond criminal sanctions. Under Polish corporate legislation, members of the management board (zarząd) may face personal liability for company debts if insolvency was not filed within 30 days of the company becoming insolvent. This civil exposure runs in parallel with criminal proceedings and is not extinguished by acquittal. The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA) and the Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego (Internal Security Agency, ABW) may conduct simultaneous asset investigations.
Criminal sanctions for financial crime under the Penal Code range from a fine to 10 years' imprisonment for aggravated fraud. Tax fraud exceeding PLN 5 million is classified as a "large-scale" offence carrying up to 10 years. Acting in an organised group adds a further sentencing uplift. These are not theoretical maximums – courts in Poland have imposed sentences at the upper range in recent high-profile corporate cases.
Asset freezes are among the most disruptive interim measures. A prosecutor may apply to the court for a freeze within the first days of investigation. Frozen assets include personal bank accounts, real estate, and shares in private companies. The freeze can remain in place for the entire duration of proceedings – potentially years. This is the irreversible consequence that makes early, competent defence so valuable: once assets are frozen and the company enters distress, the restructuring options discussed in our analysis of cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Spain become significantly harder to execute.
We secured the lifting of a precautionary asset freeze affecting accounts worth over PLN 3m for a manufacturing client in the Silesia region (autumn 2025). Early procedural intervention – filed within 14 days of the freeze order – was the decisive factor.
What are the most common mistakes executives make during investigations?
Step-by-step defence strategy only works if the executive avoids a short list of well-documented errors. The first and most damaging is speaking to investigators without counsel present. Polish criminal procedure permits investigators to question a "witness" before formal suspect status is assigned. Answers given as a witness are fully admissible and cannot later be retracted. An executive who talks freely at this stage forfeits the protection that formal suspect status would otherwise provide.
The second major error is failing to separate personal and company counsel. The company's in-house lawyer or external corporate adviser has duties to the company – not to the individual executive. In any situation where the company and the executive may have diverging interests (and in most white-collar cases they do), the executive needs independent criminal defence counsel retained personally, not through the company.
The third mistake involves document handling. Destroying, concealing, or altering documents after an investigation begins is a separate criminal offence under the Penal Code. Yet executives frequently instruct staff to "clean up" files in the days after a search. Even well-intentioned document management at this stage can constitute obstruction. Counsel must be contacted before any document review takes place.
A fourth error is underestimating the timeline. Executives often assume an investigation will be resolved in months. In complex financial crime cases, proceedings lasting 4 to 7 years before a final verdict are not unusual. Defence strategy must be built for a long campaign, not a quick resolution. Cost planning should reflect this: legal fees in a contested white-collar matter before a regional court often reach PLN 300,000 to PLN 800,000 over the full lifecycle.
How should executives approach the defence strategy across three business scenarios?
Defence strategy is not uniform. The facts, the company structure, and the executive's role all shape the optimal approach. Three scenarios illustrate the key variables.
Manufacturing company, Mazowieckie region. A production director is investigated for alleged procurement fraud – fictitious invoices totalling PLN 1.8 million over three years. The company is solvent and cooperating with prosecutors. Here, the executive's defence counsel should negotiate an early separation of the executive's liability from the company's cooperation. Demonstrating that the executive acted without board knowledge – supported by contemporaneous email records – is the primary objective. The insolvency law dimension is absent, but board liability under corporate legislation remains a risk if the company's financial position deteriorates during proceedings.
IT company, Małopolska region. A CEO of a software house is investigated for misappropriation of EU-grant funding amounting to EUR 400,000. EU-fraud cases involve both Polish prosecutors and the Europejski Urząd ds. Zwalczania Nadużyć Finansowych (European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF). The dual-track investigation – domestic criminal and EU administrative – requires coordinated defence. Counsel must monitor both tracks simultaneously. OLAF findings are not binding on Polish courts, but they are routinely cited by prosecutors and can influence judicial assessment of intent.
Foreign investor's subsidiary, Lower Silesia. The Polish country manager of a German group is investigated for alleged tax evasion – VAT carousel involvement is suspected. The parent company has its own exposure under German law. Defence here requires cross-border coordination. The subsidiary's board liability is analysed in detail in our guide on subsidiary liability in Polish corporate groups. A key decision is whether the executive invokes the right to silence or cooperates – cooperation may reduce personal exposure but creates evidence usable against the parent.
We obtained a discontinuation of proceedings against a country manager of a Pomerania-based foreign subsidiary facing VAT fraud allegations exceeding PLN 4m (spring 2026). The strategy centred on establishing the executive's good-faith reliance on external tax advisers' opinions.
Across all three scenarios, the decision matrix is the same: assess the evidence, identify diverging interests, choose cooperation or contest, and build a document-preservation protocol within the first 7 days.
Executives managing personal assets alongside corporate exposure should also consider the separation of personal wealth structures. Our overview of the family foundation in Poland explains how assets transferred before an investigation begins may retain protection – though transfers made after investigation commences risk challenge as fraudulent conveyances.
For a tailored strategy on white-collar criminal defence, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com. Specific decisions taken in the first 30 days of an investigation frequently determine whether the case is resolved efficiently or escalates into multi-year proceedings with personal liability consequences that cannot be reversed.
What does the pre-pack and restructuring intersection mean for executives under investigation?
White-collar investigations rarely occur in isolation. They frequently coincide with – or trigger – financial distress in the company. When a company becomes insolvent while its board members face criminal charges, two parallel legal processes must be managed simultaneously. Insolvency law imposes a 30-day filing deadline from the date insolvency arises. Missing that deadline creates personal liability for board members covering the full amount of unsatisfied creditor claims. Criminal proceedings do not suspend this obligation.
Pre-pack arrangements (przygotowana likwidacja) offer a structured route. Under Polish restructuring law, a pre-pack allows the business to be sold as a going concern through insolvency proceedings, preserving value for creditors while limiting the board's personal exposure. The pre-pack application must be filed simultaneously with – or immediately before – the insolvency petition. Timing is everything: a pre-pack filed after the 30-day insolvency deadline does not eliminate the board's prior liability for the period of delay.
The interaction between criminal proceedings and restructuring creates a specific risk. A prosecutor may oppose the sale of company assets under a pre-pack if those assets are subject to a precautionary freeze. Courts have discretion to permit the sale despite the freeze, but the executive's counsel must intervene in the restructuring proceedings to argue for release. Failure to coordinate criminal defence counsel with the restructuring adviser is one of the most expensive mistakes in this area – legal costs from uncoordinated parallel proceedings can exceed PLN 500,000.
What to prepare when a company faces simultaneous investigation and insolvency:
- Chronological record of when insolvency first arose (financial statements, management accounts)
- Board resolutions documenting awareness and response to financial deterioration
- Inventory of assets subject to or at risk of precautionary freeze
- Independent criminal defence mandate – separate from company counsel
- Restructuring adviser's assessment of pre-pack viability within 14 days
To receive an expert assessment of your company's exposure at the intersection of criminal proceedings and restructuring, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. Acting before the 30-day insolvency deadline closes the pre-pack option is the difference between a managed exit and irreversible personal liability.
Frequently asked questions
Q: How long does a white-collar criminal investigation typically last in Poland, and what are the cost implications?
A: Investigations in financial crime cases routinely last between 2 and 5 years before trial. Complex multi-defendant cases involving EU-fraud or VAT carousel allegations can exceed 7 years. Legal fees for defence counsel in a contested regional court matter typically range from PLN 150,000 to PLN 800,000 across the full lifecycle. Budgeting only for the investigation phase – and not for trial – is a common and costly planning error.
Q: Can a foreign executive working in Poland invoke the right to silence?
A: Yes. The right to silence applies equally to Polish nationals and foreign executives under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A foreign executive has the right to an interpreter at every stage of proceedings at no personal cost. However, invoking the right to silence does not prevent prosecutors from drawing inferences in parallel administrative or civil proceedings. The strategic decision to remain silent or cooperate should always be made with Polish criminal defence counsel, not unilaterally.
Q: Is it a misconception that cooperating with prosecutors always reduces personal exposure?
A: Yes – this is one of the most common misconceptions. Cooperation may reduce the risk of pre-trial detention and can influence sentencing, but statements made during cooperation become part of the evidentiary record. In cases involving corporate groups, an executive's cooperation statement may be used against the parent company or co-defendants, creating collateral exposure. Cooperation should be structured through counsel and limited to agreed topics – open-ended cooperation without a negotiated framework rarely benefits the executive.
KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to white-collar criminal defence, restructuring, and corporate liability. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams facing investigations, insolvency proceedings, and cross-border enforcement actions. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.