A Warsaw-based technology company receives an unexpected visit. Prosecutors from the Regional Prosecutor's Office arrive with a search warrant, seize servers, and detain the chief financial officer for questioning. The board is left without its key financial decision-maker, facing a criminal investigation it did not anticipate. This scenario is not hypothetical – it is a pattern that Polish prosecutors have pursued with increasing frequency across manufacturing, real estate, financial services, and IT sectors.

White-collar criminal defence for Polish executives covers the full range of economic crimes prosecuted under Polish criminal law, from tax fraud and accounting manipulation to misappropriation of company assets and bribery. Polish prosecutors hold extensive investigative powers, including asset freezes, custodial detention, and cross-border mutual legal assistance requests. Effective defence requires early engagement – typically within the first 48 hours of any enforcement action – because procedural choices made at that stage shape the entire trajectory of the case.

This service page maps the key instruments available to Polish executives under threat, explains the procedural stages where defence strategy matters most, and identifies the pitfalls that turn manageable investigations into personal liability events. Cross-border dimensions – particularly relevant for foreign investors and multinational groups – receive separate treatment. A self-assessment checklist closes the analysis.

What makes white-collar criminal exposure in Poland distinctively complex?

Polish criminal procedure operates under the Kodeks postępowania karnego (Code of Criminal Procedure, KPK) and the Kodeks karny (Penal Code, KK). Both codes have been amended repeatedly since 2016, expanding prosecutorial tools while compressing procedural safeguards for suspects. The result is a system where the investigation phase – conducted largely without judicial oversight – carries enormous strategic weight.

Three features make white-collar exposure particularly complex here. First, Polish prosecutors can freeze personal and corporate assets before any indictment is issued. A freeze order from the Prokurator (Prosecutor's Office) can immobilise bank accounts, real property, and shareholdings for months. Second, the Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne (Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBA) and the Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego (Internal Security Agency, ABW) operate parallel investigative tracks that can intersect with standard prosecutorial proceedings. Third, economic crime cases routinely involve fiscal offences prosecuted simultaneously under the Kodeks karny skarbowy (Fiscal Penal Code, KKS), which carries its own penalty structure and its own statute of limitations.

Board liability under Polish corporate legislation is a separate but overlapping concern. Directors of a spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (private limited liability company, sp. z o.o.) face personal liability for company tax obligations when the company becomes insolvent and the board fails to file within the statutory 30-day window. That civil exposure frequently runs alongside criminal proceedings, compounding the executive's risk profile. The interaction between insolvency law and criminal liability is one of the most demanding areas in Polish practice – and one where early advice is irreplaceable.

We secured the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against a manufacturing executive in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), where parallel fiscal and corporate criminal charges had been filed. Early intervention at the pre-indictment stage allowed the team to demonstrate that the alleged accounting irregularities reflected a disputed revenue-recognition methodology rather than intentional fraud.

Which criminal offences most frequently target Polish executives?

Polish criminal law identifies several categories of economic offence that prosecutors deploy against executives with particular frequency. Understanding which offence is alleged – and under which code – determines the available defences, the applicable penalties, and the procedural path ahead.

The most common charges against Polish executives fall into four clusters:

  • Tax fraud and fiscal offences – under the Fiscal Penal Code, penalties reach up to 720 daily rates or, for the most serious cases, imprisonment of up to 10 years. The Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa (National Revenue Administration, KAS) conducts parallel administrative investigations that feed into criminal referrals.
  • Misappropriation and breach of trust – Penal Code provisions targeting executives who act against the financial interests of the company they manage. Penalties reach 10 years' imprisonment for aggravated cases.
  • Accounting falsification – presenting false financial statements to shareholders, creditors, or public authorities. This charge frequently accompanies insolvency proceedings where the company's books are scrutinised retrospectively.
  • Corruption and bribery – both active and passive bribery of public officials, as well as commercial bribery between private parties. CBA investigations in this area can run for 18 months or longer before any charges are filed.

Fiscal offences deserve special attention. A VAT fraud allegation triggers not only KAS administrative proceedings but also a criminal referral under the Fiscal Penal Code. The executive faces two simultaneous proceedings with different evidentiary standards. Statements made in the administrative context can be used against the executive in criminal proceedings if procedural boundaries are not carefully managed from the outset.

Pre-pack restructuring – a relatively recent addition to Polish insolvency law – has created a new category of criminal risk. Executives who arrange a pre-pack sale of company assets to a related party at below-market value may face charges of acting to the detriment of creditors. The Sąd Rejonowy (District Court) supervising the insolvency will scrutinise the transaction, and prosecutors monitor court files for referral opportunities.

How should defence strategy be structured from the first day of investigation?

The first 48 hours of any white-collar investigation are the most consequential. Three decisions made in that window – whether to speak to investigators, whether to preserve or segregate documents, and whether to engage internal or external counsel – can determine whether the case reaches indictment. Getting even one of those decisions wrong creates problems that are difficult or impossible to reverse later.

Day-one priorities for any executive under investigation include:

  • Retain specialist criminal defence counsel immediately – not general corporate counsel. White-collar defence requires familiarity with KPK procedure, fiscal criminal law, and the specific practices of the relevant prosecutor's office.
  • Preserve the right to silence – Polish law gives suspects the right to refuse to answer questions at any stage. Early statements without counsel present are a primary source of self-incrimination in Polish white-collar cases.
  • Map the document universe – identify which communications, financial records, and corporate decisions are in scope before investigators do.
  • Assess parallel civil and administrative exposure – a KAS audit, a civil creditor claim, and a criminal investigation may all be running simultaneously.
  • Notify D&O insurers – Polish directors' and officers' policies typically require notification within 30 days of the executive becoming aware of a potential claim.

Internal investigations present a distinct strategic question. Commissioning an internal investigation before prosecutors arrive can demonstrate good faith and generate exculpatory evidence. But an investigation conducted without proper privilege protections can inadvertently hand prosecutors a road map. Our firm's approach to internal investigation methodology is detailed in a separate analysis – see our guide on internal investigations methodology for Polish companies.

Asset protection is a parallel concern. Polish prosecutors can apply to the District Court for a preventive asset freeze within days of opening a formal investigation. Once granted, a freeze covering personal bank accounts, real property, and shareholdings typically remains in place for the duration of proceedings – which in complex cases can span two to four years. Challenging a freeze order requires a separate procedural track and specialist knowledge of the evidentiary standards the court applies.

For a targeted assessment of your company's exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. Specific situations require specific analysis – the combination of offence category, procedural stage, and asset profile determines which instruments are available and which are foreclosed.

What are the cross-border dimensions of Polish white-collar investigations?

Polish prosecutors make active use of international cooperation mechanisms. A Polish white-collar investigation rarely stays within national borders when the company involved has foreign shareholders, foreign bank accounts, or counterparties in other EU member states. For executives of multinational groups, this creates exposure that domestic advisers alone cannot manage.

The primary instruments are the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests under EU and Council of Europe frameworks. Poland issues EAWs for economic crimes carrying imprisonment of at least one year. An EAW issued against a Polish executive who has relocated to Germany, the Netherlands, or France will typically be executed within 60 days. The executive's ability to challenge the warrant is limited once surrender proceedings are underway in the requested state.

MLA requests allow Polish prosecutors to obtain bank records, company documents, and witness testimony from foreign jurisdictions. Requests to EU member states are processed under the European Investigation Order (EIO) framework, which sets a 90-day execution deadline. In practice, requests to Germany and the Czech Republic – Poland's two most active MLA partners – are executed faster than that. Cross-border insolvency proceedings add a further layer: an executive whose company is subject to parallel insolvency proceedings in Poland and another jurisdiction faces coordinated scrutiny from both courts. Our analysis of cross-border insolvency involving Poland and the Czech Republic examines how that coordination works in practice.

We obtained a successful challenge to an EAW surrender request for a Silesian manufacturing executive (spring 2025), demonstrating that the underlying charges did not satisfy the dual criminality requirement under Polish and German law. The case required coordinated representation in both jurisdictions and was resolved before any custodial period was served.

Foreign investors face additional complexity. A German or Dutch parent company whose Polish subsidiary is under investigation will receive MLA requests, asset freeze applications, and potentially regulatory notifications to the Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (Polish Financial Supervision Authority, KNF) if the subsidiary operates in a regulated sector. Group-level crisis management – coordinating Polish criminal defence with German or Dutch regulatory counsel – requires a network that few domestic firms can provide. Cross-border insolvency cases involving Poland and Lithuania illustrate similar coordination challenges: see our analysis of cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Lithuania for the procedural detail.

What practical pitfalls turn investigations into convictions?

Most white-collar cases that result in conviction do so not because the underlying facts were indefensible, but because procedural errors at the investigation stage foreclosed the available defences. Identifying those pitfalls in advance – and building a strategy around avoiding them – is the core of effective white-collar defence.

The most damaging pitfalls in Polish white-collar practice are:

  • Speaking without counsel present – investigators are trained to obtain usable statements in informal settings before formal proceedings begin. Any communication with investigators without counsel is a risk.
  • Mixing personal and company assets – Polish courts apply personal liability for company obligations more readily when the executive has blurred the boundary between corporate and personal finances.
  • Late insolvency filing – missing the 30-day filing deadline under insolvency law triggers board liability that prosecutors treat as evidence of deliberate asset-stripping rather than business failure.
  • Destroying or altering documents – even inadvertent document destruction after an investigation opens constitutes a separate criminal offence under the Penal Code.

A particularly damaging pattern involves executives who engage with prosecutors informally – answering "preliminary questions" without formal suspect status – and later find that their statements have been incorporated into the investigation file. Polish criminal procedure allows prosecutors to reclassify a witness as a suspect after the fact. Statements made as a witness carry full evidential weight once the person becomes a suspect.

Restructuring Poland cases present their own pitfall: executives who initiate restructuring proceedings as a defensive measure without first assessing criminal exposure risk providing prosecutors with a detailed financial map of the company. Court-filed restructuring documents are public. A well-timed restructuring application can protect the company and its creditors; a poorly timed one accelerates criminal scrutiny. The interaction between pre-pack, insolvency, and criminal proceedings requires coordinated advice across all three disciplines.

Self-assessment checklist: is your company prepared?

Preparation for white-collar criminal risk is not a one-time exercise. It requires periodic review as the company's risk profile evolves – new jurisdictions, new regulatory relationships, new key personnel. The checklist below identifies the minimum baseline that Polish executives and their advisers should confirm is in place.

What to prepare before an investigation opens:

  • Retained criminal defence counsel – identified, briefed on the company's risk profile, and reachable on a 24-hour basis.
  • Document preservation protocol – a clear policy on what to preserve, where, and for how long, compliant with both corporate law and criminal procedure requirements.
  • D&O insurance review – confirm coverage extends to criminal defence costs, including cross-border proceedings, and that notification obligations are understood.
  • Insolvency filing trigger review – board members should confirm they understand the 30-day filing obligation and have a process for monitoring the company's solvency position.
  • Internal investigation protocol – a pre-agreed framework for commissioning privilege-protected internal investigations when a potential issue is identified internally before regulators or prosecutors become involved.

Two additional points merit attention. First, the board should confirm that its compliance programme covers the specific risk categories relevant to its sector – VAT chains in manufacturing, procurement in construction, related-party transactions in real estate. Generic compliance programmes do not satisfy the due diligence defence available under Polish criminal law. Second, foreign parent companies should confirm that their Polish subsidiary's crisis response protocol is integrated with group-level procedures. A Polish investigation that triggers a group-level regulatory notification in a foreign jurisdiction requires a response that both sets of counsel have pre-coordinated.

Specific situations require specific analysis. If your company operates in a sector with elevated white-collar risk – financial services, construction, public procurement, or cross-border trading – an early assessment of your exposure profile is far less costly than crisis management after proceedings open. To receive an expert assessment of your company's criminal risk exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does a Polish white-collar criminal investigation typically take before charges are filed?

A: The duration varies significantly by complexity, but investigations involving tax fraud, accounting manipulation, or corruption routinely run between 18 months and three years before an indictment is issued. During that period, asset freezes and travel restrictions may already be in place. The investigation phase is therefore the most strategically important window for the defence – not the trial phase. Early engagement with specialist counsel is the single most effective way to reduce both the duration and the ultimate outcome risk.

Q: Does engaging an internal investigation protect the executive, or does it create additional risk?

A: This is one of the most common misconceptions in Polish white-collar practice. An internal investigation conducted without proper legal privilege protections – for example, led by in-house counsel without external oversight – can generate documents that prosecutors are entitled to seize. A privilege-protected investigation commissioned under external counsel, following a structured methodology, can produce exculpatory findings and demonstrate good faith. The key is to establish privilege from the outset and to ensure that the investigation's scope and mandate are defined before any interviews or document reviews begin.

Q: What is the cost of white-collar criminal defence in Poland, and who bears it?

A: Defence costs depend on the complexity of the case, the number of charges, and whether cross-border proceedings are involved. Straightforward pre-indictment interventions may be resolved for fees in the range of PLN 50,000 to PLN 150,000. Complex multi-jurisdiction cases with trial proceedings can exceed PLN 500,000 in total legal costs. Directors' and officers' insurance policies typically cover criminal defence costs, subject to the policy's conduct exclusions and notification requirements. Executives should review their D&O policy before any investigation opens, not after – because notification obligations are triggered at the point of awareness, not at the point of formal charging.

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 navigating complex enforcement environments. 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.