A Warsaw-based technology company receives a dawn raid. Prosecutors arrive at 7 a.m., seize servers, and escort the chief executive to a police station for questioning. Within hours, a criminal investigation under Polish penal law is formally opened. The board members left behind have no idea whether they are witnesses or suspects.
White-collar criminal defence for Polish executives covers a distinct set of offences – fiscal fraud, false accounting, acting to the detriment of a company, and insolvency-related crimes – prosecuted under the Kodeks karny (Criminal Code, KK) and the Kodeks karny skarbowy (Fiscal Penal Code, KKS). Investigations can run for up to three years before charges are filed. Personal liability attaches to individual board members, not only to the company as a legal entity. Early legal intervention – ideally within 24 hours of the first investigative act – is the single most effective risk-reduction measure available.
This guide walks through the step-by-step procedure from investigation to verdict, identifies the costliest mistakes executives make, maps three business scenarios, and explains how restructuring intersects with criminal exposure. Readers unfamiliar with Polish criminal procedure will find each stage translated into practical terms.
What triggers a white-collar investigation in Poland?
Polish prosecutors open white-collar cases on three main grounds: a complaint from an injured party, a referral from the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF), or an autonomous decision by the prosecutor's office based on intelligence from the National Revenue Administration (Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa, KAS). The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) filing history is also a common source – late insolvency filings are flagged automatically.
The most frequently charged offences fall into four clusters. First, fiscal fraud and VAT carousel participation under the Fiscal Penal Code. Second, acting to the company's detriment (działanie na szkodę spółki), which carries a sentence of up to eight years. Third, false accounting and document forgery. Fourth, failure to file for insolvency within the statutory 30-day window – an offence that also triggers civil board liability under separate corporate legislation.
Two triggers deserve particular attention for foreign-owned subsidiaries. Polish prosecutors treat intra-group transactions with suspicion when the subsidiary later becomes insolvent. Transfer pricing adjustments that shift value out of Poland before a filing can be characterised as acting to the company's detriment. A second trigger is the timing of asset disposals relative to insolvency. We reversed a tax surcharge exceeding PLN 2m for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025) where the prosecution's theory rested entirely on the sequence of asset sales – demonstrating that transaction chronology, properly documented, can dismantle the case.
What should executives watch for? Consider these early-warning indicators:
- Unexpected KAS audit covering more than 24 months of VAT records
- A formal request for documents from prosecutors addressed to the company rather than to a named individual
- A bank account freeze order (blokada rachunku bankowego) without prior notice
- A KNF inquiry into related-party transactions
- A complaint filed by a former shareholder or creditor with the prosecutor's office
Any one of these signals warrants immediate retention of criminal defence counsel. The investigation phase is the most important: evidence gathered before a suspect is formally notified shapes the entire prosecution strategy.
How does the investigation and pre-trial phase work?
Polish criminal procedure divides the pre-trial phase into two stages. The first is dochodzenie (inquiry), lasting up to two months and conducted by police under prosecutorial supervision. The second is śledztwo (investigation proper), which can run up to three years in complex economic cases. Both stages involve coercive measures that can paralyse a business before any charge is filed.
During the inquiry stage, executives are typically summoned as witnesses. This is a critical distinction. A witness has no right to remain silent on facts, but a suspect does. Prosecutors sometimes delay reclassifying a person from witness to suspect precisely to obtain testimony that would later be inadmissible if given suspect status had attached. Counsel should be present at every interview, regardless of the stated procedural role.
The pre-trial phase also involves asset-preservation measures. A court may freeze bank accounts, impose a mortgage on real property, or seize company shares. Freezes under the Fiscal Penal Code can be imposed for up to 90 days in the first instance, extendable by court order. A freeze of that duration can render a company insolvent within weeks – which is why white-collar defence and cross-border insolvency strategy must be coordinated from day one.
Our team secured interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 5m for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), where a concurrent criminal investigation had triggered an automatic KRS freeze notation. The key was filing a parallel civil motion before the criminal freeze order became permanent.
Three procedural deadlines matter most at this stage. The prosecutor must present charges within 14 days of formally designating a person as a suspect. The accused has seven days to review the case file before the first hearing. Appeals against coercive measures must be lodged within seven days of the decision. Missing any of these windows forfeits procedural rights that cannot be recovered.
What are the most costly mistakes executives make?
The single most damaging mistake is speaking to prosecutors without counsel present. Polish law does not require a caution equivalent to common-law jurisdictions. An executive invited for an "informational conversation" can unknowingly provide statements used as evidence months later. This mistake alone has converted witness status into suspect status in cases we have reviewed.
The second mistake is failing to coordinate criminal defence with civil and corporate obligations. Board liability under insolvency law runs in parallel with criminal exposure. A director who files for insolvency to avoid criminal charges may simultaneously trigger a civil claim by creditors for the period of delayed filing. The interaction between the 30-day insolvency filing deadline and criminal liability for acting to the company's detriment requires precise sequencing. For the mechanics of restructuring options that reduce this exposure, the cross-border insolvency framework between Poland and Italy illustrates how multi-jurisdictional coordination changes the risk calculus.
The third mistake is underestimating document preservation obligations. Once an investigation is opened, destruction or alteration of records constitutes a separate offence. Executives sometimes instruct IT teams to implement routine data-retention policies that happen to delete relevant files. Prosecutors treat this as obstruction. A written legal hold notice, issued by counsel within 48 hours of the first investigative act, is the minimum safeguard.
Consider three business scenarios where these mistakes play out differently:
- Manufacturing company: A Silesian steel processor faces a VAT fraud allegation after a supplier is found to be a missing trader. The managing director spoke freely at the first KAS interview. That interview transcript became the prosecution's primary evidence.
- IT sector: A Warsaw software house is investigated for false accounting after inflating revenue to attract investment. The CFO deleted financial models from a shared drive three days after the investigation opened – a decision that added an obstruction charge.
- Foreign investor: A Dutch holding company's Polish subsidiary is investigated for acting to the company's detriment. The parent's employment restrictions on the Polish CEO created a conflict between following group instructions and Polish fiduciary duties. Non-compete obligations in cross-border structures can intersect with criminal exposure – a dynamic examined further in our analysis of non-compete clauses in Poland.
Each scenario illustrates a different failure mode. The common thread is that early, coordinated legal intervention would have altered the outcome at a fraction of the eventual cost.
If your company has received a prosecutorial summons or KAS audit notice, specific facts determine the correct response within 24 hours. To receive an expert assessment of your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
How does restructuring intersect with criminal exposure?
Polish restructuring law provides four procedures under the Prawo restrukturyzacyjne (Restructuring Law): arrangement approval proceedings, accelerated arrangement proceedings, arrangement proceedings, and remedial proceedings. Each has a different threshold for creditor consent and court involvement. The choice of procedure directly affects criminal exposure for board members.
The pre-pack (przygotowana likwidacja) mechanism deserves particular attention. A pre-pack allows a business to be sold as a going concern through insolvency proceedings, preserving value while limiting the period during which board members are exposed to liability for deepening insolvency. The window for executing a pre-pack is narrow – the application must be filed simultaneously with or before the insolvency petition, and the sale must close within 30 days of the court's approval decision.
Criminal exposure arises at three points in restructuring. First, if the board delayed filing for insolvency, the period of delay creates liability under both criminal and civil law. Second, if assets were transferred to related parties at undervalue during the suspect period (typically two to five years before filing), prosecutors may characterise those transfers as acting to the company's detriment. Third, if the restructuring plan contains false projections, the executives who signed the plan face false document charges.
The interaction between restructuring and criminal defence requires a coordinated team. The restructuring adviser optimises the financial outcome. The criminal defence lawyer manages the evidentiary record and advises on which statements made in restructuring proceedings may be used against the executive in criminal proceedings. These two functions must not be siloed.
A decision matrix helps clarify the choice of instrument. Where the company is viable but illiquid, accelerated arrangement proceedings preserve operations and limit criminal exposure to the pre-filing period – typically three to six months of proceedings. Where the company is insolvent and no arrangement is feasible, a pre-pack followed by insolvency minimises the window of continued trading while insolvent. Where assets have already been transferred at undervalue, criminal defence must precede any restructuring filing to avoid the plan itself becoming evidence.
Restructuring proceedings also affect employment obligations. Executives facing criminal investigation sometimes restructure employment contracts to reduce personal liability under labour law. The interaction between employment terms and criminal exposure – particularly where restrictive covenants are involved – requires careful analysis before any restructuring step is taken.
Your company's specific restructuring and criminal exposure profile determines which instrument applies and in what sequence. Choosing the wrong order forfeits options that cannot be recovered. For a tailored strategy on restructuring and criminal defence coordination, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.
What does the trial phase look like and what outcomes are available?
If the prosecutor files an indictment, the case moves to the district court (sąd rejonowy) for offences carrying sentences up to eight years, or the regional court (sąd okręgowy) for more serious charges. Economic crime cases in Warsaw and Kraków currently take 18 to 36 months from indictment to first-instance verdict – a timeline that has practical consequences for executives whose companies remain active during proceedings.
Polish criminal procedure offers several outcomes short of conviction. The court may conditionally discontinue proceedings for a period of one to three years if the accused has not been previously convicted and the offence carries a sentence of no more than five years. Conditional discontinuance does not result in a criminal record. It is available for first-time accused in false accounting and some fiscal offences, but not for acting to the company's detriment where the damage exceeds PLN 200,000.
Voluntary submission to penalty (dobrowolne poddanie się karze) allows the accused to negotiate a sentence without a full trial. The prosecutor and defence agree on the sentence; the court confirms it without examining evidence in detail. This route saves 12 to 18 months of proceedings and avoids the reputational damage of a public hearing. The trade-off is that it requires an admission of guilt, which has consequences for parallel civil proceedings by injured creditors.
Appeals against first-instance verdicts go to the court of appeal (sąd apelacyjny). The appeal must be filed within 14 days of receiving the written verdict. The court of appeal may acquit, reduce the sentence, or remand for retrial. In complex economic crime cases, a well-prepared appeal brief – addressing both legal errors and factual findings – succeeds at a meaningfully higher rate than appeals that challenge only the sentence quantum.
Executives should also plan for parallel proceedings. A criminal conviction does not automatically resolve civil claims by the company or its creditors. A conviction for acting to the company's detriment typically triggers a civil action for damages within three years of the verdict becoming final. Managing the sequence of criminal and civil proceedings – and the admissibility of criminal findings in civil courts – is a core element of the defence strategy from the outset.
Frequently asked questions
Q: How long does a white-collar investigation in Poland typically last before charges are filed?
A: An inquiry stage lasts up to two months. If prosecutors convert it to a full investigation, the statutory maximum is three years, extendable in exceptional cases. In practice, complex economic crime investigations in Warsaw average 18 to 24 months. During this period, coercive measures such as account freezes and asset seizures can remain in place, making early legal intervention essential to limit operational damage.
Q: Is it a common misconception that only the CEO bears personal liability for corporate offences?
A: Yes. Under Polish criminal law, liability attaches to any person who actually manages a company's affairs, regardless of formal title. A CFO, a supervisory board member who actively participated in a decision, or a proxy holder (prokurent) with broad authority can all be charged. The decisive question is whether the person exercised real decision-making power over the relevant transaction – not whether their name appears on the KRS as a board member.
Q: What does white-collar criminal defence typically cost for a Polish executive?
A: Costs vary significantly by case complexity and duration. An investigation-stage retainer for a single accused typically starts at PLN 30,000 to PLN 60,000 for the first six months. Full representation through trial – including expert witnesses and appeals – in a complex multi-defendant case can exceed PLN 300,000. These figures exclude civil parallel proceedings. Early intervention at the investigation stage is consistently more cost-effective than managing a case after an indictment is filed.
What to prepare: a practical checklist
If your company has received any investigative signal – a summons, a KAS audit, a bank freeze, or a KNF inquiry – the following steps should be taken within 48 hours:
- Retain criminal defence counsel with documented experience in economic crime – not general corporate counsel
- Issue a written legal hold notice to IT, finance, and HR, suspending all routine data-deletion policies
- Compile a chronology of the transactions or decisions likely to be under scrutiny, including all board resolutions and email trails
- Identify every person who may be summoned as a witness or suspect and ensure each has independent legal representation
- Review the company's restructuring options and insolvency filing status to assess whether the 30-day statutory deadline is at risk
Preparation at this stage does not signal guilt. It signals that the company and its executives understand their rights and intend to exercise them. Prosecutors expect organised defence teams. Disorganised responses – late document production, inconsistent witness accounts, missing board minutes – are treated as indicators of concealment.
The specific facts of your situation determine which of these steps is most urgent and in what sequence they should be taken. Delay in any one of them can foreclose options that remain available today. To discuss how white-collar criminal defence applies to your case, email 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.