A Warsaw-based technology company receives a notification from the Prokuratura Regionalna (Regional Prosecutor's Office). The CEO's name appears in the document. The company's financial controller has already been questioned. The board has 48 hours to decide whether to engage counsel or wait.
White-collar criminal defence for Polish executives involves a structured response to allegations of economic crime – including fraud, tax evasion, and abuse of corporate authority – under the Kodeks karny (Criminal Code, KK) and the Kodeks karny skarbowy (Fiscal Penal Code, KKS). Polish law imposes personal liability on board members for company-level financial misconduct, with custodial sentences of up to 10 years for the most serious offences. Early engagement of specialist defence counsel – before formal charges are filed – is the single most consequential decision an executive can make.
This guide walks through the key stages of a white-collar investigation in Poland: how proceedings are initiated, what procedural rights executives hold, where board liability intersects with insolvency, and how to construct a defence strategy that accounts for both criminal and civil exposure. Three business scenarios illustrate the most common patterns we encounter in practice.
How does a white-collar investigation begin in Poland?
Polish economic crime investigations are opened by the prosecutor's office – either the regional prosecutor or, in serious cases, the Prokuratura Krajowa (National Prosecutor's Office). The Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne (Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBA) and the Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego (Internal Security Agency, ABW) may also conduct parallel inquiries. Proceedings typically start with a search-and-seizure order or a summons for questioning as a witness – not yet as a suspect.
The distinction between witness and suspect status is critical. A witness has no right to remain silent on most questions. A suspect acquires full procedural rights, including the right to refuse to answer and the right to counsel. The transition from witness to suspect can happen within a single interview. Executives who attend without a lawyer frequently provide statements that later form the core of the prosecution's case.
Polish law imposes no obligation on prosecutors to notify a potential suspect before issuing a search warrant. Investigators may seize laptops, phones, accounting records, and corporate correspondence in a single morning visit. The Urząd Skarbowy (Tax Office) and the Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa (National Revenue Administration, KAS) may conduct simultaneous tax audits, feeding evidence into the criminal file. This parallel-track dynamic is one of the defining features of white-collar proceedings in Poland.
The investigation phase (postępowanie przygotowawcze) has no fixed maximum duration for economic crime matters. In complex cases, it can run for three to five years before charges are formally presented. During this period, asset freezes and travel restrictions may already be in place – even without a conviction.
What procedural rights protect executives during questioning?
Once a person is formally notified of suspect status, Polish criminal procedure law grants a defined set of rights. These include the right to access the case file (with some restrictions during investigation), the right to present evidence, and the right to be assisted by defence counsel at every procedural step. Understanding these rights – and invoking them correctly – is the foundation of effective white-collar defence.
The right to silence is absolute once suspect status is acquired. Exercising it cannot be treated as evidence of guilt under Polish law. Defence counsel can be present during all questioning sessions. Critically, counsel can intervene when a question is improperly formulated or when the line of questioning exceeds the stated scope of the investigation. These are not formalities – they are tactical moments that shape the evidentiary record.
Asset freezes deserve particular attention. The prosecutor may apply to the court for a protective seizure (zabezpieczenie majątkowe) covering personal assets of the executive, not just corporate property. The threshold for granting such an order is low at the investigation stage. An order can be issued within 24 hours of application. Once in place, it typically remains until the proceedings conclude – which may take years. Challenging a freeze requires a separate procedural motion and, in our experience, is most effective when filed within the first 30 days.
- Engage defence counsel before any voluntary interview with prosecutors or KAS.
- Request written confirmation of your procedural status (witness or suspect) at the outset.
- Do not produce documents voluntarily without legal review of the request's scope.
- File an objection to any asset freeze within 30 days of notification.
- Preserve all internal communications that may support a compliance defence.
We obtained the lifting of a precautionary asset freeze protecting personal assets worth over PLN 3m for a managing director of a logistics group in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The freeze had been in place for four months before we were engaged. Early procedural challenge – not a trial acquittal – was the mechanism that restored the client's financial freedom.
How does board liability connect to insolvency risk?
White-collar criminal exposure and insolvency law intersect in ways that surprise many executives. Polish insolvency law requires board members to file for insolvency within 30 days of the company meeting the statutory insolvency test. Failure to file on time triggers personal civil liability for the full amount of unsatisfied creditor claims. That same failure can also constitute a criminal offence under the Fiscal Penal Code – particularly where tax liabilities remain unpaid.
The connection runs in both directions. A company under criminal investigation frequently faces liquidity pressure: banks withdraw credit lines, key clients suspend payments, and suppliers demand prepayment. This financial deterioration can push an otherwise solvent company into insolvency within weeks of a search-and-seizure operation. Board members who do not monitor this dynamic risk missing the 30-day filing window – adding a separate criminal exposure on top of the original investigation.
Pre-pack insolvency (przygotowana likwidacja, or pre-pack) is an instrument worth considering in this context. It allows the sale of the business as a going concern through insolvency proceedings, protecting operational value while the criminal matter proceeds separately. The pre-pack application is made to the district court and can be prepared in parallel with defence strategy. For a detailed analysis of cross-border insolvency scenarios involving Polish companies, see our guide on cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Spain.
Tax-related criminal charges often arrive alongside insolvency risk. Where KAS identifies unpaid VAT or CIT liabilities exceeding PLN 500,000, the matter is routinely referred to the prosecutor. Executives should review their company's tax position proactively – our tax practice page sets out the advisory and audit defence services available. Coordinating tax and criminal defence from the outset avoids conflicting positions across the two proceedings.
A mid-sized manufacturing company in Silesia faced simultaneous KAS audit findings and a prosecutor's inquiry in winter 2025. By coordinating the insolvency filing with the criminal defence strategy, we prevented the board members' personal assets from being seized under civil enforcement while the criminal file remained open. The pre-pack sale closed within 90 days of the initial court application.
For executives involved in cross-border structures – particularly those with Swiss holding companies or financing vehicles – the interaction between Polish criminal proceedings and foreign asset protection measures requires careful coordination. Our analysis of cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Switzerland addresses this directly.
What are the three most common defence strategies for Polish executives?
Defence strategy in Polish white-collar matters is not one-size-fits-all. It depends on the nature of the allegation, the volume of documentary evidence already in the prosecutor's possession, and the executive's role within the corporate structure. Three patterns dominate the cases we handle.
The first is the compliance defence. This applies where the executive can demonstrate that appropriate internal controls were in place and that the alleged misconduct occurred without their knowledge or approval. Polish criminal law requires proof of intent (umyślność) for most economic crime offences. Documented compliance programmes, board-level approval procedures, and evidence of reliance on specialist advisers (legal, tax, or audit) all support this defence. The key is assembling the documentary record before the prosecutor frames the narrative.
The second is the structural authority defence. Many criminal allegations against executives rest on an assumption that board membership equals operational responsibility for every company function. Polish corporate law under the Kodeks spółek handlowych (Commercial Companies Code, KSH) allows for a division of board responsibilities. Where a supervisory board resolution or internal regulation clearly assigned the relevant function to another board member or a senior manager, criminal liability may not attach to the executive who had no operational oversight of that area.
The third is the voluntary disclosure and cooperation path. Where the evidentiary position is difficult, early cooperation with the prosecutor – combined with voluntary disclosure of facts not yet in the file – can result in a conditional discontinuation of proceedings or a significantly reduced sentence. Polish criminal procedure allows for a negotiated outcome (dobrowolne poddanie się karze) that avoids a full trial. This path requires careful assessment: disclosure that strengthens the prosecution's case against co-accused without securing a binding commitment from the prosecutor is a common and costly mistake.
What are the most common mistakes executives make during investigations?
The most damaging mistakes in white-collar defence are made in the first 72 hours. Executives who speak to prosecutors without counsel, produce documents without reviewing the scope of the request, or communicate internally about the investigation using company systems create evidentiary problems that are difficult to undo. Personal liability is irreversible once a conviction is recorded – and a conviction in Poland carries consequences for directorships, professional licences, and cross-border travel.
A second common error is treating the criminal matter in isolation from civil and regulatory exposure. KAS audits, National Court Register (KRS) obligations, and Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) notifications may all run concurrently. Statements made in a tax audit context can be used in criminal proceedings. Positions taken in civil litigation can contradict the criminal defence. Coordination across all tracks from day one is not optional.
A third mistake is underestimating the duration of proceedings. Polish white-collar investigations routinely run for two to four years before trial. During that period, the executive's ability to manage the company, enter into contracts on its behalf, and obtain bank financing may all be restricted. Planning for this operational impact – including succession arrangements and board restructuring – is part of effective defence management, not a distraction from it.
What to prepare when an investigation begins:
- Copies of all board resolutions and supervisory board protocols for the relevant period.
- Internal compliance documentation, including any legal or tax opinions obtained.
- Employment contracts and internal regulations defining board responsibilities.
- Correspondence with auditors, tax advisers, and legal counsel.
Executives who engage restructuring and white-collar defence counsel simultaneously – rather than sequentially – consistently achieve better outcomes. The insolvency filing, the asset protection strategy, and the criminal defence narrative must be coherent. Inconsistencies between them are exploited by prosecutors and civil claimants alike.
Frequently asked questions
Q: How long does a white-collar investigation typically last in Poland before charges are filed?
A: In straightforward cases involving a single company and a small number of suspects, investigations typically run for 12 to 24 months. Complex multi-entity or cross-border matters regularly extend to three to five years. During this period, asset freezes and travel restrictions may already be in force. Engaging defence counsel early – ideally at the first contact from the prosecutor or KAS – allows for active management of the investigation timeline, including formal motions to accelerate proceedings.
Q: Can a board member be held personally liable for tax debts of the company?
A: Yes. Polish tax law allows the National Revenue Administration to pursue board members personally for unpaid company tax liabilities where the company's assets are insufficient to satisfy the debt. This is a common misconception: many executives believe that limited liability under corporate law protects them from tax enforcement. It does not, where the statutory conditions for personal liability are met. The liability is joint and several across all board members who were in office during the period when the tax obligation arose and was not paid.
Q: Is it possible to resolve a white-collar case without a full criminal trial in Poland?
A: Yes. Polish criminal procedure provides several mechanisms for resolving proceedings short of trial. Conditional discontinuation of proceedings is available where the alleged harm is limited and the suspect has no prior criminal record. A negotiated guilty plea with a reduced sentence can be agreed with the prosecutor before or during trial. Voluntary restitution of the alleged financial harm – for example, payment of disputed tax arrears – is frequently a condition of a favourable outcome. The viability of each option depends on the specific facts and the prosecutor's assessment of the public interest in pursuing a full trial.
To receive an expert assessment of your situation as a Polish executive under investigation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Every investigation has a specific procedural moment where the range of available options narrows irreversibly. Missing that moment – because counsel was not yet engaged, or because the strategy was not coordinated across criminal, civil, and tax tracks – forfeits the ability to challenge asset freezes, shape the evidentiary record, or negotiate a pre-trial resolution. The personal liability that follows a conviction cannot be undone.
If your company or a member of its board is facing a white-collar investigation, a KAS audit with criminal referral risk, or an insolvency situation with potential board liability – we will assess your position, map the procedural options, and coordinate your defence across all relevant proceedings: info@kordeckipartners.com.
About KORDECKI & Partners
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 insolvency. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. 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.