A Warsaw-based technology company receives a dawn raid from the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne, CBA) at 7 a.m. on a Tuesday. Laptops are seized. The CEO is taken in for questioning. The company's bank accounts are frozen within 48 hours. Most executives in this position have no plan – and no defence lawyer on call. That gap between exposure and response is where careers and companies are lost.

White-collar criminal defence for Polish executives covers a distinct body of procedure under the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego, KPK) and the Fiscal Penal Code (Kodeks karny skarbowy, KKS). Investigations typically run 12 to 36 months before any indictment, giving the defence meaningful windows to act. Personal liability – including asset freezes and travel bans – can attach before charges are formally filed, making early legal intervention the single most important variable in the outcome.

This guide walks through the full arc of a white-collar investigation in Poland: from the first procedural steps taken by prosecutors, through the critical decisions a board member or executive must make, to the strategies that distinguish manageable exposure from catastrophic outcomes. Three business scenarios – manufacturing, IT, and foreign investor – illustrate how the same procedural framework plays out differently depending on corporate structure and sector.

What triggers a white-collar investigation against a Polish executive?

Investigations begin in one of three ways: a complaint filed by a counterparty, a referral from a supervisory body, or an autonomous decision by the prosecutor's office. The National Revenue Administration (Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa, KAS) and the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) both have standing to refer matters to prosecutors. The Public Procurement Office (Urząd Zamówień Publicznych, UZP) does the same in tender-fraud cases. Each referral channel carries its own evidentiary package, which shapes the prosecution's theory of the case from day one.

The most common trigger categories for executives are: tax fraud under the KKS, financial statement manipulation under the Commercial Companies Code (Kodeks spółek handlowych, KSH), bribery under the Penal Code (Kodeks karny, KK), and insolvency-related offences – particularly failure to file for insolvency within the statutory 30-day window. That 30-day deadline is not administrative guidance. Missing it can transform a civil board liability exposure into a criminal charge of acting to the detriment of creditors.

For foreign investors and cross-border structures, the risk profile is wider. A German parent company's Polish subsidiary may face an investigation that originates in Warsaw but draws on documents held in Frankfurt. Polish prosecutors can – and do – issue international letters rogatory within weeks of opening a formal inquiry. Executives who underestimate the cross-border reach of Polish criminal procedure often find themselves restricted from travel before they have retained counsel abroad.

  • KAS tax audits that escalate to criminal referrals (most frequent trigger)
  • Creditor complaints in distressed-company scenarios
  • KNF referrals in capital-market and fund-management cases
  • Whistleblower reports under the EU Whistleblower Directive, implemented in Poland in 2024
  • Procurement irregularities flagged by the Supreme Audit Office (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, NIK)

Identifying the trigger early is not academic. It determines which prosecutor's unit leads the inquiry, which documents will be sought first, and – critically – whether asset preservation measures are likely within the first 30 days. A board member who understands the trigger can begin shaping the narrative before prosecutors crystallise their theory of the case.

How does the investigation procedure unfold – and where are the decision points?

Polish criminal procedure divides into three formal stages: preparatory proceedings (postępowanie przygotowawcze), which run from the opening of an inquiry to an indictment decision; trial proceedings (postępowanie sądowe); and enforcement. For white-collar matters, the preparatory stage is where the defence has the greatest leverage. Prosecutors must complete preparatory proceedings within three months for standard cases, though complex financial investigations routinely receive court-approved extensions that push the timeline to two or three years.

The first 72 hours after a dawn raid or summons are disproportionately consequential. Polish law permits detention of up to 48 hours without a court order, extendable to 72 hours on a prosecutor's application. During that window, the executive has the right to remain silent and the right to defence counsel. Invoking both – immediately and unambiguously – is the single most important action in the entire proceeding. Statements made voluntarily in the first hours of questioning are nearly impossible to retract and routinely form the backbone of an indictment.

We secured a suspension of asset-freeze proceedings for a manufacturing executive in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), allowing the company to continue operating while the underlying tax fraud allegation was contested. The key was retaining counsel within six hours of the dawn raid – before the prosecutor's application for account freezing reached the court.

After the initial contact phase, the investigation moves to document review and witness interviews. The defence has the right to review the case file once the preparatory proceedings are formally closed – but can apply for partial access at earlier stages. Strategic applications for file access can reveal gaps in the prosecution's evidence and inform decisions about whether to cooperate, challenge specific acts, or seek discontinuation of proceedings.

Key decision points for the executive and their counsel:

  • Whether to submit a voluntary explanatory statement (wyjaśnienia) or maintain silence
  • Whether to apply for access to the case file before formal closure
  • Whether to challenge the legality of search and seizure measures
  • Whether to seek a consensual resolution (dobrowolne poddanie się karze) before indictment

For a detailed analysis of how insolvency-related criminal exposure interacts with restructuring procedures, see our article on cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Lithuania, which covers the procedural interplay between creditor claims and criminal referrals in multi-jurisdictional collapses.

What are the most common mistakes Polish executives make in white-collar investigations?

The most damaging mistakes are made in the first 48 hours. Executives who speak freely to investigators – believing transparency will accelerate resolution – routinely provide the prosecution with its most useful evidence. Polish procedure does not reward early voluntary disclosure in the way that some other jurisdictions do. Cooperation at the investigation stage can reduce a sentence, but it cannot undo statements that establish the factual basis for a charge. Silence, combined with early retention of specialist counsel, is consistently the better opening posture.

The second major error is treating a white-collar investigation as a company problem rather than a personal one. Board members who allow company counsel – typically a corporate lawyer with no criminal procedure experience – to represent them at the investigation stage often find themselves without independent advice at the moment it matters most. Company interests and individual executive interests diverge sharply once prosecutors begin offering plea arrangements to one board member in exchange for testimony against another.

We obtained a discontinuation of criminal proceedings for an IT sector CFO in the Małopolska region (spring 2026) after successfully demonstrating that the alleged financial statement irregularity was the result of an auditor's reclassification decision, not executive intent. The case had been running for 14 months before we were retained. Earlier intervention would likely have prevented the indictment entirely.

A third common mistake is failing to account for ESG and supply-chain compliance exposure. Executives at companies with complex supplier networks increasingly face allegations that link procurement decisions to bribery or fraud. For an analysis of how supply-chain due diligence obligations intersect with criminal exposure, see our guide on ESG due diligence in supply chains – Polish perspective.

Additional errors that consistently worsen outcomes:

  • Destroying or altering documents after learning of an investigation (constitutes a separate offence)
  • Contacting co-suspects or witnesses without counsel's approval
  • Failing to monitor asset-freeze applications, which can become permanent within 30 days if unchallenged

Each of these errors forfeits procedural options that cannot be recovered. Polish criminal procedure is largely sequential – rights not exercised at the correct stage are extinguished, not merely delayed.

How should executives in different sectors approach white-collar defence strategy?

The procedural framework is uniform, but defence strategy varies substantially by sector and corporate structure. Three scenarios illustrate the divergence.

Manufacturing scenario. A Polish manufacturing company with 300 employees faces a KAS referral alleging VAT carousel fraud. The managing director is personally suspected. The company has a pre-pack restructuring option available, which – if executed before criminal proceedings reach trial – can preserve enterprise value and demonstrate good-faith creditor treatment. Board liability under insolvency law and criminal liability under the KKS run in parallel here. The defence strategy must coordinate both tracks: challenging the tax assessment administratively while simultaneously contesting the criminal referral. A pre-pack completed within six months of the KAS referral can materially reduce the personal exposure of the managing director by demonstrating that creditor harm was minimised.

IT sector scenario. A software company's CEO is investigated for allegedly inflating revenue in financial statements presented to a private equity investor. The allegation involves both KSH offences (acting to the detriment of the company) and KK offences (fraud). The defence must address the civil and criminal tracks simultaneously, because the investor's civil claim will proceed in parallel with the criminal investigation. Coordinating the defence narrative across both proceedings – without making admissions in one that prejudice the other – requires specialist oversight from the first day of exposure.

Foreign investor scenario. A German investor's Polish subsidiary is under investigation for alleged bribery in a public procurement process. The parent company faces parallel exposure under German anti-corruption law. Polish prosecutors and their German counterparts will exchange information under EU mutual legal assistance frameworks within weeks. The executive team – split between Warsaw and Frankfurt – needs coordinated cross-border defence counsel immediately. Failure to align the Polish and German defence strategies within the first 30 days precludes the kind of coordinated response that can prevent an indictment in either jurisdiction. For further analysis of cross-border insolvency and criminal exposure in multi-jurisdictional structures, see our piece on cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Switzerland.

Across all three scenarios, the decision matrix follows the same logic: identify the trigger, secure independent personal counsel within 24 hours, assess asset-freeze risk within 48 hours, and make the cooperation-versus-silence decision with full awareness of the evidentiary position – not on the basis of instinct or goodwill.

Every executive facing investigation should prepare the following before or immediately upon first contact from prosecutors:

  • A list of all corporate roles held in the past five years, including board positions in subsidiaries
  • Copies of all resolutions and minutes in which the executive participated in the relevant decisions
  • Contact details for independent personal criminal defence counsel, separate from company counsel
  • A record of all documents and devices likely to be subject to seizure
  • An assessment of any ongoing restructuring or insolvency proceedings that could interact with the criminal exposure

Specific to the question of timing and cost: preparatory proceedings in complex white-collar cases cost between PLN 80,000 and PLN 400,000 in defence fees depending on the number of suspects, volume of documents, and whether international cooperation is required. Entering the case at the investigation stage – rather than at indictment – typically reduces total defence costs by 30 to 50 percent, because the range of available procedural interventions is far wider.

Your company's specific situation requires an assessment before prosecutors consolidate their evidentiary position. Waiting for an indictment forfeits the most effective defence windows and makes asset recovery substantially harder.

If your company or a member of your board is under investigation – or if you have received a summons, a dawn raid notification, or an asset-freeze order – contact us to discuss the specific procedural options available at your current stage: info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does a white-collar investigation in Poland typically last before a decision is made on indictment?

A: Preparatory proceedings in complex financial cases routinely run between 18 and 36 months. The prosecutor's office can apply for extensions beyond the standard three-month period, and courts grant these in virtually all complex white-collar matters. The executive remains under formal suspicion throughout, with travel and asset restrictions potentially in place for the entire duration. Retaining specialist counsel at the outset – rather than at indictment – is the most effective way to shorten this window.

Q: Is it true that cooperating with prosecutors early will always lead to a lighter outcome?

A: This is a common misconception. Polish criminal procedure does provide for reduced penalties in cases of voluntary disclosure and cooperation, but cooperation only reduces sentencing outcomes – it does not prevent charges from being filed on the basis of statements already made. Executives who speak freely in the first days of an investigation often provide the factual foundation for the charge itself. The correct approach is to assess the evidentiary position with counsel before deciding whether cooperation is strategically advantageous.

Q: Can an asset freeze imposed at the investigation stage be challenged, and what is the timeline for doing so?

A: Yes. Polish criminal procedure allows a suspect to challenge an asset freeze before the court that authorised it. The challenge must generally be filed within 30 days of the freeze order. If unchallenged, the freeze can remain in place for the full duration of the preparatory proceedings – potentially years. Successful challenges require demonstrating either procedural irregularity in the application or disproportionality between the frozen amount and the alleged harm. Early challenge is consistently more effective than waiting for the case to reach trial.

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.