A Warsaw-based technology company receives a dawn raid. Prosecutors from the Regional Prosecutor's Office present a warrant. The managing director – holding full signing authority – is named as a suspect in a fiscal criminal proceeding. Within hours, bank accounts are frozen and correspondence is seized. The board has no defence counsel on standby. Every decision made in the next 48 hours will shape the outcome of a proceeding that may last three years.

White-collar criminal defence for Polish executives covers proceedings under the Kodeks karny skarbowy (Fiscal Penal Code, KKS) and the Kodeks karny (Criminal Code, KK), ranging from tax fraud and false accounting to misappropriation and bribery. Polish law allows prosecutors to freeze assets, restrict travel, and suspend board members from office before any charge is formally filed. Effective defence requires engagement within the first 24 to 48 hours of contact with law enforcement – delay forfeits procedural options that cannot be recovered later.

This guide walks through the five stages of a white-collar proceeding in Poland: early-stage risk mapping, the investigation phase, asset-protection measures, trial strategy, and the intersection with insolvency and restructuring. Each section includes a concrete timeline, cost benchmarks, and the most common mistakes executives make when facing their first criminal inquiry.

What triggers white-collar criminal exposure for Polish executives?

Polish prosecutors open white-collar investigations on four main grounds: tax shortfalls identified by the Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa (National Revenue Administration, KAS), complaints filed by shareholders or counterparties, referrals from the Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, UOKiK), and suspicious transaction reports filed by banks with the Generalny Inspektor Informacji Finansowej (General Inspector of Financial Information, GIIF). Each pathway carries a different risk profile and a different timeline to prosecution.

Board liability is the central exposure point. Polish corporate legislation holds management board members personally responsible for acts committed in connection with their managerial functions. This covers signing off on financial statements, approving tax returns, and authorising payments. A member who delegated a task to a subordinate is not automatically shielded – prosecutors examine whether supervision was adequate. The personal liability risk is therefore structural, not incidental.

Three business scenarios illustrate the spectrum:

  • Manufacturing company (Silesia): VAT carousel fraud alleged against the CFO following a KAS audit; exposure up to eight years' imprisonment under the Fiscal Penal Code.
  • IT services firm (Mazowieckie): False invoicing claim arising from a shareholder dispute; parallel civil and criminal proceedings running simultaneously.
  • Foreign investor's subsidiary (Lower Silesia): Bribery allegation under the Criminal Code after a public procurement tender; risk of debarment from future tenders.

One figure matters immediately: under insolvency law, the 30-day filing deadline for insolvent companies creates a separate criminal exposure track. A board member who fails to file within that window can face personal liability for the company's unsatisfied obligations – and a separate charge of acting to the detriment of creditors. White-collar defence and restructuring Poland strategy must therefore run in parallel from day one.

How does the Polish criminal investigation phase work?

Polish criminal procedure divides the pre-trial phase into two stages: dochodzenie (inquiry) and śledztwo (formal investigation). An inquiry is conducted by the police or KAS fiscal control units and lasts up to two months, though extensions are common. A formal investigation is led by a prosecutor and can last up to three years before charges are filed. Executives are often unaware they are under scrutiny until a search warrant arrives or they receive a formal summons as a suspect.

The first procedural right that matters is the right to remain silent. Under Polish criminal procedure, a suspect is not obliged to provide testimony. This right must be invoked explicitly – silence alone is not sufficient. Defence counsel must be retained before any police interview. An executive who speaks to investigators without counsel present risks creating a record that the prosecution will use at trial. That record cannot be erased.

We secured the withdrawal of an asset-freeze order covering accounts worth over PLN 3m for a manufacturing client in the Silesia region (winter 2025). The freeze had been imposed during the inquiry phase, before formal charges were filed. Early intervention – within 72 hours of the freeze order – was the decisive factor.

Asset protection measures available during investigation include:

  • Application to lift or limit a provisional attachment (zabezpieczenie majątkowe).
  • Challenge to the legality of a search and seizure under procedural rules.
  • Request for access to seized business documents to preserve operational continuity.
  • Travel ban review – a prosecutor may impose a ban without court order; appeal lies to the supervising court within seven days.

Defence costs at the investigation stage vary. Retaining experienced white-collar counsel typically costs between PLN 20,000 and PLN 80,000 for the investigation phase, depending on complexity and the number of suspects. Complex fiscal fraud cases involving multiple jurisdictions sit at the upper end. Executives should budget separately for forensic accounting support, which adds PLN 10,000 to PLN 40,000 in a typical VAT fraud case.

What are the critical mistakes executives make in the first 48 hours?

The first 48 hours of a white-collar investigation determine more about the eventual outcome than any subsequent procedural step. Three mistakes recur with near-perfect consistency across cases handled in Poland. Each is avoidable. Each, once made, is difficult to correct.

The first mistake is speaking to investigators without counsel. Polish criminal procedure allows investigators to conduct an initial conversation before formally designating someone a suspect. That conversation is admissible. Executives who explain, justify, or provide context in an informal setting create a narrative that prosecutors treat as a voluntary statement. Retaining defence counsel before any contact – including a phone call from a KAS officer – is non-negotiable.

The second mistake is destroying or reorganising documents. Polish law treats document destruction after an investigation has begun as a separate offence carrying up to five years' imprisonment. Any instruction to accounting staff, IT administrators, or assistants to delete, move, or reformat files after a search warrant has been served – or even after the executive becomes aware of the investigation – constitutes obstruction. A litigation hold must be issued within hours.

The third mistake is failing to assess insolvency exposure in parallel. Where the investigation relates to financial mismanagement, the company itself may be insolvent. A board member who continues trading while insolvent faces compounding criminal exposure. Engaging restructuring Poland counsel alongside criminal defence counsel from day one avoids a situation where the criminal defence strategy contradicts the insolvency filing position.

Our team obtained interim protection for a foreign-owned subsidiary in the Małopolska region (spring 2026), preventing the enforcement of a provisional attachment that would have rendered the company unable to meet payroll. The application was filed within 36 hours of the attachment order and succeeded on procedural grounds.

How does white-collar defence intersect with insolvency and restructuring?

The overlap between white-collar criminal proceedings and insolvency law is the area where Polish executives are most exposed and least prepared. Polish restructuring law – the Prawo restrukturyzacyjne (Restructuring Law, PRL) – provides four restructuring procedures, including the pre-pack (przygotowana likwidacja). A pre-pack sale can preserve the business while the criminal proceeding runs separately. Understanding how these instruments interact is central to any defence strategy where the company is also financially distressed.

Board liability under insolvency law operates independently of criminal liability. A conviction for acting to the detriment of creditors does not require proof of intent in all circumstances – negligence is sufficient under certain provisions. This means a board member who genuinely believed the company was solvent may still face personal liability if the court finds the belief was unreasonable. Defence counsel must therefore address both the criminal standard (intent) and the civil/insolvency standard (reasonableness) simultaneously.

Cross-border dimensions add further complexity. Where the company has subsidiaries or creditors in other EU member states, the Rozporządzenie UE o postępowaniu upadłościowym (EU Insolvency Regulation) determines which court has jurisdiction. Proceedings involving Poland and Luxembourg or proceedings involving Poland and Italy each follow distinct procedural paths under EU law. Defence strategy must account for the risk that foreign proceedings could be used to gather evidence or enforce judgments against the executive personally. For a detailed treatment of cross-border insolvency mechanics, see our analysis of cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Luxembourg and our separate guide on cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Italy.

A sanctions dimension can also arise. Where the company has trade relationships with sanctioned counterparties, a white-collar investigation may expand to include sanctions violations. Polish companies are subject to EU sanctions regulations directly applicable in Polish law. For executives facing this additional exposure, our overview of sanctions screening obligations for Polish companies provides a practical starting framework.

The decision matrix for distressed companies under criminal investigation:

  • Solvent, investigation only: criminal defence as primary track; no immediate restructuring action required.
  • Insolvent, investigation ongoing: file for restructuring within the 30-day window; criminal defence counsel and restructuring counsel must coordinate.
  • Pre-pack viable: accelerated sale preserves value; criminal proceeding continues against individuals, not the acquiring entity.

The pre-pack instrument is particularly valuable where the investigation targets the legal entity as well as individuals. A completed pre-pack sale transfers the business to a clean acquirer. The criminal proceeding against the executive continues, but the company's operations – and its employees – are protected. Timing is everything: a pre-pack filed after assets are attached by prosecutors may fail if the attachment covers the assets being transferred.

What does a complete white-collar defence checklist look like?

A defence checklist for Polish executives must cover both immediate procedural steps and medium-term strategy. The following items represent the minimum preparation required before any formal contact with investigators. Executives who have not completed this checklist before a dawn raid are operating without a safety net.

What to prepare before and during a criminal investigation:

  • Retain white-collar defence counsel with Polish criminal procedure experience before any investigator contact – not after the first summons.
  • Issue a litigation hold covering all electronic and paper records, including emails, accounting systems, and board minutes.
  • Obtain a current solvency assessment from an independent auditor; document the board's knowledge of the company's financial position.
  • Map any cross-border exposure: subsidiaries, creditors, and counterparties in other EU jurisdictions.
  • Review sanctions screening records for the past 24 months; identify any gaps in the company's compliance programme.

Timeline benchmarks: a KAS fiscal audit that becomes a criminal referral typically takes 6 to 18 months from audit commencement to formal suspect designation. A formal investigation (śledztwo) runs up to three years. Trial at first instance in a district court averages 18 to 36 months. An appeal to the regional court adds 12 to 24 months. Total elapsed time from first KAS contact to final judgment: four to seven years in complex cases. Planning for this timeline – financially and operationally – is part of defence strategy.

Cost benchmarks for the full proceeding: PLN 150,000 to PLN 500,000 in legal fees for a complex fiscal fraud case running through trial and appeal. Forensic accounting, expert witnesses, and translation costs add a further 20 to 30 percent. Executives should treat these figures as planning parameters, not ceilings – exceptionally complex multi-defendant cases exceed these ranges.

To receive an expert assessment of your criminal exposure and defence options, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a Polish executive be prosecuted personally even if the company itself is not charged?

A: Yes. Polish criminal law allows prosecutors to charge individual board members independently of any proceeding against the legal entity. Personal liability attaches to acts performed in connection with managerial functions – signing financial statements, approving payments, or directing staff. The company's subsequent liquidation or bankruptcy does not extinguish the individual proceeding. A board member who resigns after the investigation begins remains exposed for acts committed during their tenure.

Q: How long does the prosecution have to file charges after a search and seizure?

A: Under Polish criminal procedure, the general limitation period for fiscal offences is five years from the end of the tax year in which the offence was committed, extendable to ten years where the offence is treated as a serious fiscal crime. For offences under the Criminal Code – such as misappropriation or bribery – limitation periods range from five to fifteen years depending on the maximum sentence. The search and seizure does not restart the limitation clock, but it does establish the date of the investigation for procedural purposes. Defence counsel should calculate the limitation position as one of the first steps in case assessment.

Q: Is it a common misconception that cooperating with investigators reduces criminal exposure?

A: Yes – and it is one of the most damaging misconceptions in Polish white-collar practice. Voluntary cooperation without a negotiated procedural framework (such as a formal agreement under the Criminal Code's provisions on voluntary disclosure) typically produces a record that strengthens the prosecution's case without securing any binding benefit for the executive. Cooperation that does reduce exposure must be structured by counsel, agreed with the prosecutor in writing, and linked to specific procedural outcomes. Informal goodwill cooperation – answering questions, providing documents without a court order – delivers no enforceable benefit and forfeits the right to silence.

For a tailored strategy on white-collar criminal defence and its intersection with restructuring and insolvency, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

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.

Marcin specialises in restructuring, insolvency, and white-collar defence.

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.