Anti-Corruption 2025 Comparisons

Poland is a party to a number of international conventions related to anti-bribery and anti-corruption.

Poland was admitted to the European Council on 26 November 1991 and is a party to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe of 27 January 1999 (which started to apply in Poland on 1 April 2003) and Civil Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe. Since 1 August 2014, Poland has been subject to the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption.

Poland ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 15 September 2006 and signed the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 17 December 1997.

In addition, Poland is a member of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).

As a member of the European Union, Poland also implemented a range of EU legal acts on combating corruption.

The main national legislation in the area of anti-bribery and anti-corruption is the Polish Criminal Code (CC), which provides for most offences relating to corruption. In particular, the CC’s provisions regulate issues related to liability for official, international and business corruption. However, some offences related to bribery and corruption are laid down in separate regulations. For instance, liability for corruption in sport is provided for under the Act on Sport. There are also separate provisions on corruption in the area of reimbursement of medicines, set out in the Act of 12 May 2011 on the reimbursement of medicines, foodstuffs for special nutritional uses and medical devices. In addition, there are several other regulations that provide for anti-corruption mechanisms, such as the Law of 21 August 1997 on Restrictions on the Economic Activities of Persons Performing Public Functions.

There are no specific rules or guidelines addressed to judges or prosecutors regarding the interpretation and enforcement of national anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation. General rules are applicable.

In other words, the same rules govern charging and filing an indictment in all kinds of matters, including corruption and bribery cases. A justified suspicion of an offence is sufficient to start proceedings and collect evidence. The prosecutors have discretionary powers to decide if the examination of evidence provides grounds to charge/indict. The indictment is then verified in two-instance court proceedings.

The court assesses the case at its own discretion, based on an examination of collected evidence. While imposing a penalty, the court also relies on its own discretion but always within the limits prescribed by law. The court is obliged to observe that the onerousness of a penalty does not exceed the degree of fault. When imposing the sentence, the court should take into account, in particular, such circumstances as the motivation or behaviour of the perpetrator, the degree of breach of the obligations imposed on the perpetrator, the nature and extent of the negative consequences of the offence, the characteristics and personal circumstances of the perpetrator, their way of life before committing the offence and their behaviour after committing the offence, in particular, efforts to make restitution or provide compensation.

A significant amendment to the CC, which came into force on 1 October 2023, introduced several fundamental changes, in particular, increasing the penalties for certain offences. The changes in the amendment include:

• increasing the penalty of 25 years of imprisonment to 30 years of imprisonment;
• introducing a kind of leniency programme, ie, an impunity clause, for offences of hindering or obstructing a tender procedure or entering into an agreement to unduly influence the outcome of an ongoing or planned tender procedure (bid-rigging), in a situation where the perpetrator has notified the law enforcement authority or the competition authority of a member state of the European Union or the European Commission of the fact that the offence has been committed, and has disclosed all relevant circumstances of the offence before the law enforcement authority has become aware of them; and
• extending the statute of limitations for murder to 40 years.

The changes also apply to bribery and corruption offences. For example, the act increases the penalty for corruption offences where the financial benefit exceeds PLN200,000 from up to 12 years’ imprisonment to up to 15 years’ imprisonment.

In addition, the new amendment also introduces a new type of aggravated forms of corruption, that is, if the financial benefit exceeds PLN1 million, the perpetrator is liable to between three and 20 years of imprisonment.

Moreover, Article 306b of the CC introduced aggravated forms of certain offences against business transactions and property interests in civil law transactions (eg, acting to the detriment of the company, and money laundering). If the value of the property or the amount of damage exceeds PLN5 million, such crimes are punishable by three to 20 years of imprisonment. If the value of the property or the amount of the damage exceeds PLN10 million, such crimes are punishable by five to 25 years’ imprisonment.

Parallel aggravated forms are provided for most offences against property (eg, theft, robbery, extortion, fraud, embezzlement and misappropriation). If the value of the property exceeds PLN5 million, such offences are punishable by three to 20 years’ imprisonment. If the value of the property exceeds PLN10 million, the offence is punishable by five to 25 years’ imprisonment.

In September 2024, the Act of 14 June 2024 on the protection of whistle-blowers implementing Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of whistle-blowers of Union law entered into force.

In all cases of corruption, a bribe is a material or personal benefit. Material and personal benefits include both benefits for the perpetrator and other people.

Polish law does not define the minimum value of a material benefit, which is considered to be the profit gained by the person who accepts the bribe. Therefore, this may be an act that increases the assets or reduces the liabilities of the person accepting the bribe. Money and hospitality expenditures, gifts and promotional expenditures, or facilitation payments of considerable material value are always classified as material benefits.

A personal benefit is understood to be a particular outcome desired by the person accepting the bribe but not necessarily one that involves material gain – for example, a promotion in the workplace, making it possible to participate in an entertainment or sports event, or accepting a job. A personal benefit is assessed subjectively, that is, depending on the specific situation of the perpetrator.

Criminal Liability

The CC provides for the criminal liability of both the person accepting the bribe (passive corruption) and the person offering (active corruption) it in all types of corruption crimes. Conduct that constitutes an offence is not only the giving and accepting of a material or personal benefit, but also the promise of giving such a benefit or demanding it.

Public Corruption

For the offence of “public corruption”, the person accepting the bribe must be a person holding a public function (this is a notion broader than that of a “public official”). Under Article 115, Section 19 of the CC, a person holding a public function is a public official; a member of a local government; a person employed in an organisational entity utilising public funds, unless this person exclusively performs servicing duties; as well as any other person whose public powers and duties are established or recognised by a statute or an international agreement that is binding for the Republic of Poland.

Public officials are a broad category of people including, among others, the President, members of parliament, members of the European Parliament, senators, judges, prosecutors, notaries public and bailiffs, as well as employees of the government administration, local government, state inspection bodies and services designated for public security, and persons performing active military service. Moreover, Polish criminal law envisages criminal liability for the corruption of persons holding public functions in foreign states. The mechanism of liability for this is the same as would be applied to Polish officials.

Business Corruption

Criminal law provisions also provide for criminal liability for corrupt conduct in business relationships. Similar to the corruption of officials, the objective of business corruption may be a material or personal benefit. Criminal conduct may consist of giving, accepting, demanding, or making a promise of benefits. Both the giver and the receiver of the bribe are subject to criminal liability.

It is a crime to corrupt a person holding a managerial function in a business entity or an employee of a business entity in exchange for:

• abuse of the powers granted to them; or
• the non-performance of their duty,

which may cause:

• damage to that entity; or
• constitute an act of unfair competition or an inadmissible preferential act in favour of a buyer or recipient of goods, services or performance.

Polish legal provisions also criminalise the actions of a person who, in return for a financial or personal benefit or the promise of such a benefit, undertakes to act as an intermediary in the conduct of affairs, to claim influence, to cause another person to believe that influence exists, to use such a belief, or to persuade another person to believe that influence exists, over:

• a state or local government institution;
• a national or foreign organisation;
• a national or foreign entity receiving public funds;
• a state-owned enterprise; and
• a commercial company in which the State Treasury, local self-government or a state legal person holds shares.

Moreover, another offence under Polish law relates to providing or promising to provide a material or personal benefit in exchange for interceding in settling a matter before the aforementioned institutions, consisting in unlawfully influencing a decision or action, or the omission of an action, by a person performing a public function, in relation to performing this function.

In the Polish jurisdiction, keeping inaccurate financial records constitutes an offence under fiscal criminal law. Inaccurate financial records are understood to be records containing false entries. With regards to criminal liability, under fiscal criminal law, it is possible to hold a management board member liable even if financial record-keeping was not included in their responsibilities. Such a board member is subject to criminal liability for fiscal crimes committed as part of the operations of the company they manage.

The CC provides for the offences of misappropriation and embezzlement. These regulations are applicable to both public and private funds. Hence, they are applicable, among others, to public officials. Public officials might also face criminal liability for unlawfully taking an interest in or favouritism based on general provisions of bribery, corruption, or influence-peddling offences (see 2.2 Influence-Peddling), as well as for offence of official misconduct, which consists of an action by a public official to the detriment of the public or individual interest by exceeding their authority or failing to perform their duties.

In Poland, an offence may also be committed through an intermediary.

Under the CC, the following may also be subject to criminal liability:

• co-operators who act jointly and upon a mutual agreement with another person; and
• a person who directs the commission of a prohibited act by another person or orders another person to commit such an act by exploiting this person’s dependence on him or her.

Furthermore, a person who wants another person to commit a prohibited act and persuades this person to do so is liable for incitement. In addition, whoever intends another person to commit a prohibited act, facilitates such by their conduct, especially by providing an instrument, conveyance, counsel or information, is liable for assisting a crime.

In Poland, lobbying activities are regulated in the Act on Lobbying in the Legislative Process of 7 July 2005. This Act specifies the principles of transparency of lobbying activities in the legislative process, the principles of conducting professional lobbying activities, the forms of control of professional lobbying activities, and the principles of maintaining a register of entities conducting professional lobbying activities.

The above-mentioned lobbying activities are legal and public. The Act concerns legislative processes that can be influenced by professional lobbying entities. According to the provisions of this Act, there is a register of entities that carry out such activities, and only entry in such a register allows legal lobbying. An entity carrying out lobbying activities without being registered will be subject to a fine of between PLN3,000 and PLN50,000, which may be imposed repeatedly if the entity fails to take steps to be entered in the register and continues to lobby illegally.

The Polish Criminal Code provides for a general rule of statute of limitations applicable to all offences. According to this rule, the statute of limitations varies according to the nature of the offence and the range of the statutory penalty.

An offence shall cease to be punishable if the following years have elapsed since it was committed:

• 40 – if the act constitutes the crime of murder;
• 20 – if the act constitutes another crime (ie, a crime is an offence punishable by at least three years’ imprisonment);
• 15 – if the act constitutes a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment exceeding five years;
• Ten – if the act constitutes a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment exceeding three years; and
• Five – if the act constitutes another offence.

The offences described in 2.1 Bribery, 2.2 Influence-Peddling, 2.4 Public Officials and 2.5 Intermediaries, are usually no longer punishable after 20, 15 or ten years from the time they were committed, depending on whether the specific offence is treated as a crime (punishable by imprisonment for not less than three years) or as a misdemeanour (punishable by imprisonment for up to more than three or five years).

Notwithstanding the above, if the investigation was initiated within the period, the offence ceases to be punishable after a further ten years.

With regards to keeping inaccurate financial records (see 2.3 Financial Record-Keeping), fiscal (tax) regulations are applicable. In this case, the limitation period is five years. However, if proceedings were instituted within this period, the offence ceases to be punishable after the lapse of a further five years.

In principle, Polish criminal law provides for criminal liability for acts that were committed in Polish territory, or the effect of which occurred in Poland. Criminal liability is also envisaged for crimes committed abroad by a Polish citizen. A foreigner may be held liable if the crime committed was against the interests of Poland, a Polish citizen, or a Polish legal person. For a perpetrator to be held liable for a crime committed abroad, the act must be deemed a crime under the laws and regulations in force in the place where it was committed. However, the foregoing limitation does not apply to a crime directed against the operation of Polish public offices or the economic interests of the state.

Therefore, it is possible for foreigners to be held liable under Polish criminal law for the corruption of Polish officials despite the crime not being committed in Poland.

The Act on the Liability of Collective Entities for Acts Prohibited Under Penalty (ALCE)

The current ALCE regulates issues regarding the quasi-criminal liability of commercial companies.

The ALCE is applicable if a person acting in the name of a company has committed one of the offences specified in the statute and the company has gained, or could have gained, any benefit from this act, whether financial or not. Hence, in those situations, the same offence might be subject to the liability of both individuals and companies. It should be emphasised that it follows from practice to date that the law enforcement bodies do not commence proceedings in every case in which such a possibility arises.

Ministry of Justice statistics show that only a couple of dozen proceedings of this type commence each year. This figure is very low, especially taking into account the fact that more than 10,000 people are sentenced every year for committing business crimes.

Committing any of the following offences may lead to criminal proceedings:

• mismanagement;
• public corruption;
• corruption in business;
• credit and subsidy fraud;
• money laundering;
• crimes related to making repayment of creditors impossible and reducing their satisfaction;
• failure to file a bankruptcy petition on time; and
• insider trading.

Numerous other offences are specified in other pieces of legislation that regulate specific areas of economic activity.

A Legally Binding and Final Guilty Verdict is Required

A condition for commencing proceedings against a company is that a legally binding and final guilty verdict against a person acting in the name of the company has been established. There are two other instances where proceedings against a company may be commenced:

• a verdict that conditionally discontinues criminal proceedings against such an individual; or
• a verdict that discontinues criminal proceedings by stating that even though the crime has been committed, the perpetrator cannot be punished.

Criminal personal liability is always placed ahead of quasi-criminal corporate liability.

Liability Under the ALCE

Liability under the ALCE may be imposed if one of the following can be proven:

• at least a lack of due diligence in the choice of the person representing the entity who is, at the same time, the perpetrator of an offence; or
• defective organisation of the company, which did not ensure the avoidance of an offence being committed when it could have been prevented if the body or representative of the collective entity had applied the required due diligence.

It should be noted that the liability arising under this Act is non-transferable, that is, in the case of a merger, division or restructuring of the relevant company, the liability expires. However, the court might impose an interim prohibition of such transformation to prevent a company from avoiding liability in this way.

In addition, under Article 24 of the Fiscal Criminal Code (FCC), a legal entity, such as a company, should be liable in whole or in part for a fine imposed on the perpetrator of a fiscal offence if the perpetrator is a substitute for that entity conducting its affairs as a proxy, manager, employee, or acting in any other capacity, if the entity obtained or could have obtained any financial benefit from the committed fiscal offence.

The Polish legal system does not provide for specific ways of defence. In general, the defence in this type of offence are the same as in any criminal case. Typically, it is aimed at proving that the conduct in question does not fulfil all the statutory elements of the offence – ie, both objective and subjective characteristics.

However, a well-functioning compliance programme might be a solid defence against the above offences (especially those described in 2.1 Bribery and 2.2 Influence-Peddling). A compliance system is helpful in cases of actions contrary to the law that harm the interests of public offices (the State Treasury) or collective entities. A frequent problem that arises in criminal proceedings is the lack of internal regulations clearly laying down the procedures and scope of duties, as a result of which it is difficult to show the actions or omissions of the party.

As the Polish legal system does not provide for specific defences, there are no exceptions in this respect.

Polish criminal law provides for some exceptions in bearing criminal liability, depending on the circumstances of a given case.

First of all, whoever acts with the purpose of performing an economic experiment that is expected to yield results of a significant cognitive or economic value – and whose expectation of achieving them, purposefulness and method of performing the experiment are well founded in the light of contemporary knowledge – is not committing a crime.

Secondly, whoever acts with the purpose of averting immediate danger to any legally protected interest, if the danger cannot be otherwise avoided, and the sacrificed interest represents a lower value than the interest that is being salvaged, is not committing a crime.

Moreover, if the perpetrator of an offence has voluntarily redressed the full damage, the court may apply an extraordinary mitigation of the penalty or even waive its imposition.

As regards fiscal offences, a mechanism of “active repentance” is in place. A perpetrator who notifies enforcement authorities of the relevant circumstances concerning the offence (particularly persons assisting in the offence committed) before the authorities have knowledge of the offence is not subject to a fiscal crime or fiscal petty offence. This rule is applicable only if the public debt has been fully paid.

There are no sectors or industries that are exempt from the offences noted in this chapter.

In general, no special “credit” is granted for the voluntary disclosure of any offence or adequate compliance procedures. However, for some offences, such as active bribery or bid-rigging, the disclosure of all the substantive circumstances of an offence can result in a lack of punishment. As described in 1.3 Guidelines for the Interpretation and Enforcement of National Legislation and 4.3 De Minimis Exceptions, the court should take into account the perpetrator’s remediation efforts when imposing a penalty.

With respect to fiscal crimes, it is only possible for the person responsible for committing the act to avoid criminal fiscal liability by presenting the “active repentance”, described in 4.3 De Minimis Exceptions, or adjusting a tax return. The FCC stipulates a number of specific requirements for acts of “repentance” that need to be met in order to avoid liability.

Bribery and Corruption

Currently, the offences of bribery and corruption are penalised by deprivation of liberty for between six months and eight years. However, in a case of lesser gravity, the perpetrator is subject to a fine, the penalty of limitation of liberty, or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to two years. On the other hand, if the bribery or corruption relates to an activity constituting a violation of a legal provision, the penalty is deprivation of liberty for between one and ten years. In a case where the bribe is of substantial value (ie, exceeding PLN200,000), the penalty is the deprivation of liberty for between two and 15 years. Moreover, according to the above-mentioned new amendment to the CC (see 1.4 Recent Key Amendments to National Legislation), the most severe penalty is imprisonment from three to 20 years – if the bribe exceeds PLN1 million. In such cases, the offence is treated as a crime.

Influence-Peddling

The offences related to influence-peddling are penalised in Poland by deprivation of liberty for between six months and eight years. Similarly, as above, in a case of lesser gravity, the perpetrator is subject to a fine, the penalty of limitation of liberty, or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to two years.

Business Corruption

Business corruption, both active and passive, is punishable by deprivation of liberty between three months and five years. If the actions taken by a corrupt manager or employee demanding or accepting a financial or personal benefit, or the promise of such a benefit, cause damage exceeding PLN200,000, the CC provides for a more severe penalty, ie, between six months and eight years. Since the amendment to the CC, which entered into force on 1 October 2023 (see 1.4 Recent Key Amendments to National Legislation), if the perpetrator of passive business corruption demands or accepts a financial or personal advantage or the promise of such an advantage, the value of which exceeds PLN5 million, or if his/her conduct causes damage of a value exceeding PLN5 million, the penalty is imprisonment for three to 20 years. If the value exceeds PLN10 million, the penalty is five to 25 years’ imprisonment.

Misappropriation and Embezzlement

The penalty for misappropriation is deprivation of liberty for up to three years. Embezzlement is penalised by deprivation of liberty for between three months and five years. In a case of lesser gravity, the perpetrator of misappropriation is subject to a fine, the penalty of limitation of liberty, or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

However, if an offence of misappropriation or embezzlement is committed with regard to a property of substantial value (ie, exceeding PLN200,000), the perpetrator is subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for between one and ten years. Since the amendment to the CC, which entered into force on 1 October 2023 (see 1.4 Recent Key Amendments to National Legislation), the perpetrator of a misappropriation or embezzlement offence involving property with a value of more than PLN5 million is liable to imprisonment for between three and 20 years, and for property with a value of more than PLN10 million is liable to imprisonment for between five and 25 years.

Financial Record-Keeping

As regards keeping inaccurate financial records, whoever, despite an obligation, does not keep books or keeps books inaccurately, is subject to the penalty of a fine of up to 240 daily rates. (In Poland, a fine is imposed in daily rates by specifying the number of daily rates and the value of one daily rate. The value of one daily rate may not be less than PLN10 and more than PLN2,000.) In cases of lesser gravity, the behaviour is treated as a petty tax offence and is punishable by a fine of between one-tenth and 20 times the minimum monthly wage.

As described in 1.3 Guidelines for the Interpretation and Enforcement of National Legislation, the court imposes the punishment according to its own discretion but within the limits prescribed by law. The minimum and maximum penalties are provided under law.

Repeat or Regular Offences

Repeat offences are more severely punished. If a perpetrator previously sentenced to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for an intentional crime commits another intentional crime similar to the one for which they were sentenced, within a period of five years of serving at least six months of the penalty, the court may impose a penalty exceeding by half the upper limit of the statutory penalty provided for the crime attributed to the perpetrator.

The provisions regarding a penalty being imposed also apply to perpetrators who commit crimes as a regular source of income. Furthermore, under the CC, two or more actions performed within a short time interval, pursuant to a premeditated intent, are deemed to constitute a single prohibited act. In practice, such a situation might result in one or more severe sanctions.

Motivation and Manner of Conduct

The CC provides for general guidelines (also applied in bribery and corruption cases) which state that, while imposing a penalty, the court pays particular attention to the perpetrator’s motivation and manner of conduct, such as:

• the type and degree of violation of the perpetrator’s duties;
• the type and extent of the negative consequences of the crime;
• the characteristics and personal conditions of the perpetrator;
• the perpetrator’s way of life prior to committing the crime; and
• the perpetrator’s behaviour after committing the crime.

The court should also take into account the perpetrator’s efforts to redress the damage or to satisfy the public sense of justice in some other form.

Conduct of the Harmed Party

The court should also bear in mind the harmed party’s conduct.

The court also takes into consideration the positive results of mediation between the harmed party and the perpetrator, or a settlement they have reached during proceedings held before a court or public prosecutor.

Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

The recent amendment to the CC introduced a catalogue of examples of behaviours that may constitute mitigating and aggravating circumstances that the court should take into consideration when imposing a sentence. A mitigating circumstance is, for example, compensation for the damage caused, reconciliation with the victim, or voluntary disclosure of a committed crime to law enforcement authorities by an offender. On the other hand, an aggravating circumstance is, for example, taking advantage of a victim’s helplessness, disability, illness or old age, acting with particular cruelty, or committing a crime while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicants.

Under Polish law, the legal obligation to report a suspected offence applies only to state and local government bodies which, in connection with their activities, become aware of a suspicion that an offence subject to ex officio prosecution (including offences of a corruption nature) has been committed. Failure to comply with this obligation may be treated as an offence of official misconduct, which consists of an act by a public official to the detriment of the public or individual interest by exceeding their authority or failing to perform their duties.

In addition, specific regulations provide for the obligation to report certain serious crimes. For instance, under banking law, if there is a reasonable suspicion that a bank’s activities are being used to conceal criminal activity, the bank is obliged to notify the enforcement authority with the competence to conduct criminal proceedings.

With respect to individuals and/or companies, Polish law does not impose such an obligation to report criminal conduct (with exceptions described below). Therefore, in cases of bribery, corruption, influence peddling, etc, the general provisions of the Polish Penal Code and the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. This means that individuals and/or companies are not obliged to disclose information about their knowledge of violations of anti-bribery and anti-corruption provisions.

Although Article 304 Section 1 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a so-called “civic duty” to report any offence, which is prosecuted ex officio by anyone who has knowledge that an offence has been committed, this duty cannot be treated as a legal obligation and failure to comply with this duty is not sanctioned in any way.

Article 240 of the Polish Criminal Code imposes a legal obligation to report, but only for certain types of crime. According to this provision, anyone who has reliable information about the preparation, attempt or commission of one of the offences listed in Article 240 of the Criminal Code is obliged to report the offence without undue delay. Failure to do so is treated as a criminal offence. The list of offences provided for in Article 240 of the Polish Penal Code includes, inter alia, homicide, offences that may harm national security, offences of a terrorist nature, sexual intercourse with a minor and unlawful imprisonment. Corruption-related offences are not included in this list, so there is no legal obligation to report such behaviours.

According to the Polish Criminal Code, the perpetrator of active corruption, both public and business, is not subject to a penalty if the material or personal benefit or its promise has been accepted and the perpetrator has reported it to a law enforcement authority responsible for prosecuting of offences and has disclosed all the relevant circumstances of the offence before this authority became aware of it. This is known as the “no-penalty” or immunity clause.

The same applies to influence peddling. The perpetrator of the offence of giving or promising to give a material or personal benefit in exchange for facilitating a matter with the following entity:

• a state or local government institution;
• a national or international organisation;
• a national or foreign entity that receives public funds;
• a state enterprise; and
• a commercial company in which the State Treasury, local self-government or a state legal person has shares,

which consists of unlawfully influencing a decision, action or omission of a person performing a public function, shall not be punishable if the material or personal benefit or the promise thereof has been accepted and the perpetrator has notified the authority established for the prosecution of the offence and has disclosed all relevant circumstances of the offence before it came to the attention of the authority.

In addition, the general provisions of the Polish Penal Code may be applied to a perpetrator who has disclosed information about the persons involved in the crime and the material circumstances of its commission to a law enforcement authority responsible for the prosecution of offences. In this case, the court may apply an extraordinary reduction of the sentence or even conditionally suspend its execution.

There is no special procedure for self-reporting violations of anti-bribery and anti-corruption provisions. An active briber who wishes to benefit from the immunity clause must disclose all relevant circumstances of the offence before it comes to the attention of the authority. Such disclosure may be made in any manner, including in writing, as a statement to the Authority, or orally before a law enforcement authority.

As mentioned in 1.4 Recent Key Amendments to National Legislation, in September 2024, the Act of 14 June 2024 on the Protection of Whistleblowers implementing Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of whistle-blowers of Union law entered into force.

According to the provisions of the Act, all private entities with at least 50 employees are required to establish a whistle-blowing system and an internal procedure for reporting violations of law in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Act sets out the mandatory minimum standard for such an internal procedure. The Act also specifies the areas of law whose violation or suspected violation may be reported, and the internal procedure must allow for the reporting of such violations, one of which is corruption.

The Act also provides mechanisms for the protection of whistle-blowers, ie, persons who report or publicly disclose information about a violation of the law obtained in a work-related context. In particular, the Act clearly states that no retaliation, attempt or threat of retaliation may be taken against the whistle-blower. Retaliation is defined as any direct or indirect act or omission in a work-related context caused by a report or public disclosure that violates or is likely to violate the whistle-blower’s rights or causes or is likely to cause undue harm to the whistle-blower, including the initiation of unfounded proceedings against the whistle-blower.

Under Polish law, there are no statutory incentives for whistle-blowers to report bribery and corruption and other violations.

However, an entity that is required to establish a whistle-blowing system may, on a voluntary basis, include its own system of incentives for whistle-blowers in its internal procedure for reporting violations of the law.

In Polish jurisdiction, there is criminal enforcement of anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws.

Criminal proceedings in corruption cases in Poland are conducted in the form of investigations, as is the case for virtually all criminal offences. This means that they are conducted by the prosecutor’s office. Investigations may be entrusted to the police or to other agencies, such as the CBA.

If an indictment is brought to court, the case is heard by a common criminal court. There are no special courts for corruption cases in Poland.

In 2006, a special service, the Central Anti-corruption Bureau (CBA), was established with the priority of detecting and preventing corruption in public life. The CBA carries out secret operations aimed at uncovering crimes and performs tasks within the framework of criminal proceedings under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Similar to other special agencies, the CBA has the right to carry out operational activities such as surveillance, wiretapping and even entrapment (the controlled giving of bribes).

The jurisdictional reach of the enforcement bodies and the court is referred to in 3.2 Geographical Reach of Applicable Legislation. Taking this into account, the jurisdiction of Polish bodies mainly covers acts committed in Polish territory, or the effect of which occurred in Poland.

However, Polish law enforcement bodies co-operate with other countries’ authorities. The rules and scope of co-operation are various. Co-operation with particular countries is prescribed under bilateral international agreements, multilateral conventions, or international organisation regulations (including, primarily, EU law and its implementations).

The prosecution has the discretion to decide if the examination of evidence provides grounds to charge/indict. The court also imposes penalties according to its own discretion but within the limits prescribed by law.

There are no deferred prosecution agreements under Polish law. However, there are some mechanisms that allow a penalty to be mitigated and a criminal investigation to be resolved without a trial.

In cases referred to under Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor may move to convict the accused without a trial. This requires the following conditions to be met:

• the confession of the accused;
• an explanation of all the circumstances of the case, which do not contradict the conclusions based on other gathered evidence; and
• the attitude of the accused, indicating that the purpose of the proceedings will be achieved without a trial.

The court must verify whether the circumstances of the offence that has been committed give rise to doubts and whether the attitude of the accused indicates that the purpose of the proceedings has been achieved.

Moreover, according to Article 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused who has been charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to 15 years may, before the end of the first hearing of all the accused in the trial, file a motion for a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a specific penalty or criminal measure on him or her, or for the imposition of a confiscation or compensation measure, without an evidentiary hearing being held. The court may grant the accused’s request for a judgment of conviction only if the circumstances of the offence and the responsibility of the accused do not give rise to any doubt and if the objectives of the proceedings can be achieved without a full trial; the request may be granted only if the public prosecutor and the injured party, who has been duly informed of the date of the trial and of the possibility for the accused to make such a request, do not object.

Upon the public prosecutor’s motion, the court may apply an extraordinary mitigation of the penalty and may even conditionally suspend its enforcement. Such a situation may occur regarding a perpetrator who, apart from giving explanations in their own case, has disclosed a crime subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for five years and presented its substantive circumstances to a law enforcement authority that had no prior knowledge of these facts.

As already described, under the CC, an active briber will not be subject to a penalty if the benefit or its promise has been accepted by the receiver of the bribe, and the perpetrator has reported this to a law enforcement authority. An active briber must disclose all the substantive circumstances of the crime before the authority learns about them.

There have been many significant cases of bribery and corruption in Poland.

One of the biggest corruption cases is being conducted by the Circuit Prosecution Office in Warsaw. The case concerns a Polish citizen (a former Minister of Transport in Poland) for acts committed while he was the head of the State Automobile Road Services in Ukraine. The suspect is accused of accepting material benefits amounting to several million zlotys (PLN) in exchange for supporting a specific company in the award and execution of public procurement procedures for the construction and maintenance of roads in Ukraine. The Prosecution Office in Warsaw conducted the investigation in co-operation with Ukrainian authorities. The prosecutor has filed an indictment and the case is currently being recognised by the Circuit Court in Warsaw, and is at the trial stage. As the accused is the former Minister of Transport and a well-known former politician, the case has received a lot of media attention and remains of public interest.

In another high-profile corruption case, Poland’s former deputy Foreign Minister and others are alleged to have been involved in a scheme that allowed non-EU citizens, mainly from Africa and Asia, to obtain Polish visas in a fast-track procedure by paying bribes. The case is being conducted by the National Prosecutor’s Office, Lublin Division, and the CBA.

Recently, on 25 October 2024, the CBA detained the Deputy Marshal of the Silesian Voivodeship in Poland and the prosecutor charged him with corruption. The details of the charges are not yet known, but according to media reports they are related both to his position as the Deputy Marshal of the Silesian Voivodeship and to his former position as the Deputy Mayor of Częstochowa. The court decided to place him under temporary arrest.

In another well-known corruption case that is still pending, the former Minister of the Treasury and the former Deputy Minister of the Treasury are suspected of accepting bribes in connection with contracts with the Municipal Sanitation Enterprise in Warsaw, worth approximately PLN6 million. The former Minister of the Treasury is accused of accepting a bribe of almost PLN5 million and the former Deputy Minister is accused of, among other things, leading a criminal organisation and money laundering. The investigation is currently being conducted by the prosecutor’s office in Katowice.

The proceedings described in 7.5 Recent Landmark Investigations or Decisions are still under way. Currently, no criminal sanctions have been imposed on the individuals or legal entities for the offences allegedly committed.

At present, legal provisions do not require companies to implement a compliance programme. However, many private companies implement such programmes and this is a defence against the offences. Compliance programmes are particularly common in companies with foreign capital and in the financial sector. In the absence of a general regulation on compliance programmes, it is difficult to establish any specific recommended elements for such programmes. As a rule, it would be advisable for their scope to cover all the units, or branches and subsidiaries of a given entity, and ensure regular reviews of their activity. Shortcomings in this area usually have a very strong negative effect on the efficiency of compliance programmes. The preferred course of action tends to involve accounting and auditing experts.

Therefore, the law does not impose a general obligation to prevent corruption by establishing a compliance programme. Failure to prevent bribery is not an offence itself. Under the CC, only a person with a specific legal duty to prevent the consequence of an offence from happening is subject to criminal liability for the consequences that result from the offence being committed by omission. In addition, whoever by their conduct facilitates the commission of a prohibited act by another person, but only in defiance of a legal, special duty not to allow such prohibited act to be committed, may be liable for assistance.

Notwithstanding the above, specific entities (eg, banks, investment funds, entities managing alternative investment companies, insurance companies and reinsurance companies, as well as entities conducting brokerage activities and fiduciary banks) are obliged, under special provisions, to maintain tight compliance controls or an internal audit system. These systems have a similar function to internal investigations and are, at times, subject to compulsory reporting. Failure to properly maintain the aforementioned systems may result in one or more of many administrative sanctions being imposed on the entity.

The CBA issued anti-corruption guidelines for standardised institutional practices and public officials. The CBA publication provides guidance on setting up an anti-corruption system in public administration units, both organisational and legal solutions, which can be helpful in determining best practice for compliance programmes. The system should include the following components:

• management involvement;
• corruption risk assessment;
• competencies and responsibilities of anti-corruption personnel;
• training;
• gift policy and benefits register; and
• effective self-assessment and monitoring of corruption risks (including whistle-blower protection).

According to this publication, internal audit activities should support management in the effective implementation of the anti-corruption policy. The CBA recommends, among other things, that the task of conducting a corruption risk assessment should be assigned to an anti-corruption officer or a dedicated team should be established for this purpose (including, in particular, managers or staff of the organisational units for compliance, control and internal audit, security and crisis management, management control, human resources and training). In addition, the Guidelines indicate the need to include corruption risk assessment in the risk management system and in the list of statutory tasks of the control and internal audit units. The Guidelines also recommend that regular evaluations of the anti-corruption tools and mechanisms in place should be carried out every two years. The self-assessment process should take into account the findings of the control or internal audit function and management control. In the context of monitoring corruption risks, the document recommends that an internal audit should be involved in this process. Tasks in this area should be ongoing and should be carried out by the anti-corruption officer and staff in the organisational control and internal audit units.

The gift policy should provide that an official, in the course of his/her official duties representing the institution at a meeting at national or international level, may accept a gift on condition that:

• the meeting is of an official nature;
• the gift is of a symbolic nature and value;
• the gift is of a voluntary nature and is not enforced by any party; and
• the gift is of a souvenir nature.

An essential and mandatory part of an effective gift policy should be the establishment and maintenance of a gift register to document the receipt or giving of gifts on behalf of or for the represented institution in certain official situations.

For companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange SA, there are also “Recommended Standards for the Anti-Corruption Compliance Management System and Whistleblower Protection System for Companies Listed on the Markets of the Warsaw Stock Exchange SA”. It is recommended that the Company has and adheres to the Company’s Anti-Corruption Code as a proclamation to spread and promote compliance, ethical activities and explicit rejection of corruption. It is recommended that, in addition to the statement of opposition to corruption, the anti-corruption code should include:

• a description of how to identify potential corruption risks and how to respond to incidents of corruption;
• a description of the company’s values with respect to relationships among employees, with supervisors, and with employees, contractors, and partners, including business partners;
• a description of how conflicts of interest are avoided;
• general rules on giving and receiving gifts in business relationships;
• general rules for the reporting of irregularities and abuses and for the protection of whistle-blowers; and
• principles of liability for failure to comply with the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Code.

Under Polish law, law enforcement authorities do not have the option of seeking a compliance monitor as part of a corporate resolution. As mentioned, legal provisions do not impose an obligation on business entities to implement compliance programmes.

Polish anti-corruption legislation has been officially evaluated by the OECD several times. The OECD published its latest report on Poland’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in 2022. The report focused on developments since Poland was reviewed in 2013 and 2015.

According to the latest report, Poland had fully implemented ten Phase 3 recommendations, had partially implemented five, and had not implemented a further five.

The Working Group is concerned that Poland has not implemented previous key recommendations that are fundamental to fighting foreign bribery. Corporate fines for this crime remain insufficient. There is also no comprehensive legislation to protect whistle-blowers. Since 2007, the Working Group has warned that these deficiencies render Poland in non-compliance with the Convention. Equally concerning is Poland’s poor record of enforcing its foreign bribery laws. Judicial and prosecutorial independence is another enforcement-related concern. On the positive side, the OECD noted that the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau is an active and well-known institution in fighting corruption. It can play an important role in fighting foreign bribery if its remit is specifically extended. The General Inspector of Financial Information, the financial intelligence unit, has good working relations with its stakeholders.

Poland held parliamentary elections in October 2023 and a new government, held by former opposition parties, was formed and a number of significant legislative changes are expected in the near future (eg, amendment of the Act on the Liability of Collective Entities for Acts Prohibited Under Penalty, liquidation of the CBA, and reforms related to the judicial system in Poland).

More recently, in October 2024, the Ministry of Justice announced that a draft law amending the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure had been included in the government’s legislative work list. The aim of the draft law is to introduce legislation that will:

• strengthen the right to defence at all stages of the proceedings;
• reduce the excessive use of temporary detention;
• prohibit the use of illegally-obtained evidence (eg, illegal wiretapping);
• allow life imprisonment only with the possibility of applying for conditional release;
• increase the decision-making power of the courts towards reducing the decision-making power of the prosecutors, who will now be able to decide on a number of procedural issues; and
• increase the penalty for obstructing or preventing a tender.