Practice shows that frauds are usually crimes aimed at the unlawful seizure or extortion of funds accumulated in bank accounts, most often with the use of electronic banking. The most common type of fraud in Poland is phishing. This term is understood as an adopted method in which a criminal impersonates another person, company or institution in order to extort confidential information, persuade the victim to take specific actions, or extort funds. Another type of fraud is the misappropriation of company property by its employees or members of its management board. There has also been a significant increase in investment fraud, which involves attempts to extort money. Fraudsters are constantly improving the techniques they use to persuade potential victims to make investments, usually offering very high profits with a supposedly low risk of losing money.

In the Polish legal system, both criminal law and civil law provisions are used to combat fraud. In order to effectively pursue claims for fraud, it is entirely justified to conduct both proceedings (ie, civil and criminal) in principle in parallel, with the mutual use of evidence collected in these proceedings. Criminal proceedings play an important role in this regard, as they provide the opportunity to quickly examine the case and obtain security. In criminal proceedings, it is important that the victim of a crime promptly files a notice of suspected crime with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It is worth noting that some evidence can only be obtained in criminal proceedings – this applies in particular to evidence covered by banking, tax or telecommunications secrecy, which is of particular importance in pursuing the above-mentioned claims. However, one should not forget the importance of civil proceedings, which give the victim of a crime the opportunity to claim damages.

Grounds for Prosecuting the Crime of Bribery

In the Polish legal system, bribery is sanctioned by criminal law. The applicable provisions depend on whether the conduct concerns the public sector or the private sector. The bases for punishment for this type of crime are:

• passive bribery: accepting a financial or personal benefit, or a promise thereof, in connection with the performance of a public function;
• active bribery: granting or promising to provide a financial or personal benefit to a person performing a public function in connection with the performance of this function;
• paid passive protection: undertaking intermediation in settling a case with reference to influence (eg, in a state or local government institution, national or international organisation), causing another person to believe in the existence of influence, using such a belief or confirming their belief of the existence of influence, in exchange for a financial or personal benefit or a promise of such influence; and
• paid active influence: granting or promising to provide a financial or personal benefit in exchange for intermediation in settling a case, consisting in unlawful influence on the decision, act or omission of a person performing a public function, in connection with the performance of this function.

The above acts are punishable by imprisonment, and in less serious cases also a fine or restriction of liberty.

Acceptance of a Bribe by an Agent

It is also worth adding that accepting a bribe may cause damage, in which case the employer is liable for damage caused by the employee accepting the bribe. However, such an employer is entitled to a recourse claim against the employee. An employee accepting a bribe may also be subject to disciplinary liability, including termination of the employment contract without notice.

Aiding and Abetting in Criminal Procedure

Pursuant to the applicable provisions of Polish criminal law, anyone who facilitates the commission of an offence through their behaviour – in particular by providing a tool or means of transport or by giving advice or information, with the intention of causing another person to commit a prohibited act – is liable for aiding and abetting. Moreover, anyone who facilitates the commission of such an offence through their omission, contrary to a specific legal duty to prevent the commission of a prohibited act, is also liable for aiding and abetting. Polish criminal law treats incitement and aiding and abetting on a par with perpetration, so the instigator or aider is punished within the limits of the threat intended for the perpetrators.

Accepting Funds From Fraud – Money Laundering

The acceptance of fraudulent assets may be qualified as a crime of money laundering. Liability on this basis may be borne by the person who:

• receives, possesses, uses, transfers or exports abroad, hides, transfers or converts funds derived from crime;
• assists in the transfer of ownership or possession; or
• undertakes other activities that may frustrate or significantly hinder the determination of assets’ criminal origin or place of placement, detection, seizure or forfeiture.

Civil Procedure

The Civil Code provides a basis for filing a claim for redress of damage against a person who persuaded or helped another person to cause damage, as well as against a person who knowingly benefitted from the damage caused to another person. Civil law also provides for the possibility of filing an Actio Pauliana, which is used in a situation where a third party obtains a financial benefit as a result of a legal act performed by the debtor to the detriment of creditors; the creditor may then request that this act be recognised as ineffective in relation to said creditor. It is necessary, however, that the debtor acted with awareness of harming the creditors and that the third party also knew about it.

Limitation Period in Criminal Law

In criminal proceedings, the limitation period depends on how the act is classified and what penalty is imposed for a given crime. As a rule, in the case of fraud and money laundering (which are the most common legal qualifications in this type of act), the perpetrator cannot be punished if 15 years have elapsed since the offence was committed, so the statute of limitations for punishing these types of offences is 15 years.

Limitation Period for Claims for Compensation

The limitation periods for claims for damages pursued in civil proceedings are as follows:

• three years from the date on which the injured party learnt about the damage and the person obliged to compensate for it, although this period may not be longer than ten years from the date on which the event causing the damage occurred; and
• 20 years from the date on which the crime was committed if the damage resulted from a crime or a misdemeanour (in which case it is irrelevant whether criminal proceedings have previously been instituted and penalties imposed).

Rules Regarding the Procedure for the Recovery of Funds

A basic principle that is of vital importance when a victim claims restitution is the need to prove ownership of the funds that were lost as a result of the fraud. It is therefore necessary to submit to the Public Prosecutor’s Office any evidence and documents in one’s possession that will prove ownership of these funds. If the fraudulent funds are commingled with other funds in the offender’s accounts, recovery will be difficult but not impossible.

As a matter of principle, Polish law does not use proprietary tracing concepts in the same way as some common law jurisdictions. In practice, the victim’s position will usually depend on whether the asset can still be identified with sufficient precision and whether ownership-based arguments remain available. This distinction may be particularly important in insolvency, because an ownership-based position is generally stronger than a purely personal claim for payment.

Where there is only one victim and said victim proves ownership of the lost funds, recovery will be possible. However, the situation becomes more complicated when there are many victims in the case and the funds blocked in the offender’s accounts are not sufficient to satisfy all the victims. In such cases, prosecutors sometimes apply a proportional division of the blocked funds depending on the amount of funds lost by each victim, but more often, due to the complicated nature of the case, the case is taken to court for further proceedings. In such a case, recovery requires lengthy negotiations first with the prosecutor and then with the court.

When the funds obtained from the crime are further invested, the crime involves money laundering, as indicated in 1.3 Claims Against Parties Who Assist or Facilitate Fraudulent Acts. Indeed, money laundering is considered to be any activity that aims to introduce into the legal marketplace assets that come from illegal sources.

Lost Funds as Material Evidence

It is beneficial for the victim of the crime of fraud if the prosecutor’s office considers the funds lost by said victim as a result of fraud as material evidence. When the prosecutor’s office finds that this evidence is unnecessary for further proceedings, it may release it, which will enable the victim to recover the funds.

Out-of-Court Resolution

Civil procedure

Before bringing an action for damages as a result of a fraudulent act, the party who intends to bring the action should attempt to resolve the dispute out of court. An example of such an action is to issue a demand for payment to the entity that will be the defendant in the event of the claim, indicating a deadline by which it must respond to the demand in question.

Criminal procedure

The criminal procedure does not provide for amicable proceedings before a case is filed. Before filing a report of a suspected crime, all actions are undertaken already within the framework of the ongoing proceedings; only within the scope of this procedure is it possible to make any attempt at negotiation.

Summons

It is advisable to start by issuing a summons, as a summoned party may make an effort to reach a settlement in the case, thus avoiding litigation and reducing the costs of proceedings.

One of the basic methods in criminal proceedings of preventing the perpetrator of fraud from dispersing or hiding assets is to file a motion to block the account that was used to commit the crime and, if the perpetrators can be identified, also other accounts belonging to them. Such a blockade is associated with a ban on making withdrawals, outgoing transfers and other operations involving a reduction in the balance on the above-mentioned accounts.

It is best to submit the application immediately – ie, at the very beginning of the proceedings, in the notification of a suspected crime. This means that the account may already be blocked when the proceedings are in the in rem phase – ie, despite the fact that the perpetrator has not yet been identified. Criminal proceedings also provide for property security, which is a measure aimed at securing a future judgment on the accused’s property if there is a risk that the execution of the judgment will not be possible without security. Both real estate and movable property may be subject to such seizure.

As a rule, no fees are paid for activities in criminal proceedings, so the application for blocking accounts is not subject to a fee.

Securing Claims in Civil Proceedings

In civil proceedings, it is possible to obtain appropriate security through the court imposing certain restrictions on the defendant or on a participant in the proceedings related to the management of property and the possibility of its disposal. As indicated in 1.3 Claims Against Parties Who Assist or Facilitate Fraudulent Acts, in a situation where the debtor disposes of their assets, the creditor may, after meeting the conditions specified in the regulations, also file an action for declaring the debtor’s legal transaction to the detriment of the creditor ineffective; this institution is called the Actio Pauliana. Furthermore, concealing, selling or deleting assets by the debtor is a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Disclosure Procedures

Under Polish law, claimants may apply for interim asset preservation orders, which can include disclosure obligations. Although there is no standalone statutory “asset disclosure order”, courts may require the defendant to identify assets in support of enforcement or preservation, as follows.

• In Polish civil law, formal asset disclosure from a defendant is typically available after a judgment is issued. Before judgment, claimants may apply for interim freezing orders or evidence preservation, although broad pre-action disclosure of assets is not permitted.
• In criminal cases, prosecutors and courts have wide powers to obtain information about a suspect’s assets at any stage of proceedings. This includes compelling third parties to disclose information, seizing assets and tracing funds held by nominees.
• In bankruptcy and restructuring cases, court-appointed administrators can demand comprehensive asset disclosures from the debtor and third parties. There are also mechanisms to reverse fraudulent transfers and secure hidden assets.

Failure to comply with disclosure obligations in civil or insolvency proceedings may result in fines, coercive detention or criminal liability for providing false information. In criminal cases, refusal to disclose assets can lead to additional charges or sanctions.

Assets Held by Nominees

Nominee arrangements typically involve one party holding assets or exercising rights on behalf of another, often based on a private agreement. While such arrangements are commonly recognised in certain jurisdictions, it should be noted that Polish law does not formally recognise the concept of a nominee as a distinct legal institution. In criminal proceedings, however, it is possible to prosecute the actual beneficial owners if it can be demonstrated that such a relationship existed and that they exercised effective control over the assets or rights in question.

Cross-Undertaking in Damages

Unlike in common law systems, under Polish civil procedure (Articles 730–757 of the Code of Civil Procedure) Polish courts typically do not require a formal cross-undertaking in damages from claimants when granting interim injunctions, although courts may sometimes request the claimant to provide a security deposit to cover potential wrongful loss. This approach simplifies asset freezing applications and lowers the financial risk for claimants.

Legal Measures to Secure Evidence

Under Polish law, when there is a credible risk that crucial evidence might be destroyed or suppressed, a party may request the court to issue a preservation order. These orders are designed to secure relevant documents and other evidence pending the outcome of the proceedings. This mechanism is particularly useful in cases involving economic or corporate crimes where the alteration or destruction of evidence is a genuine threat.

Key measures include:

• interim injunctions – the court may grant orders aimed specifically at preserving evidence, ensuring that documents or electronic data remain intact; and
• asset and evidence freezing orders – although primarily used to secure assets, these orders can also protect evidence by freezing accounts or records that may contain vital information.

Physical Searches of Premises

Under Polish law, parties to civil or commercial disputes have no right to physically search a defendant’s premises or business. Only state authorities (court, prosecutors or police) may conduct physical searches upon court warrant or prosecutor’s order.

Requirements and Cross-Undertaking in Damages

To obtain these remedies, the claimant must show:

• credible evidence of urgency – proof that evidence is at risk; and
• strict proportionality – the search must be narrowly tailored to the dispute.

Although Polish law does not generally mandate a cross-undertaking in damages as in common law systems, courts may sometimes require a security deposit to safeguard against potential wrongful search claims.

Obtaining Third-Party Disclosure

Polish civil and criminal procedures allow for the disclosure of documents or evidence from third parties through court or prosecutor intervention. This is especially useful in complex fraud, corruption or asset recovery cases involving banks, accountants or business associates.

Key tools include:

• court orders – the claimant may request the court to compel a third party to produce specific documents; and
• expert appointments – courts may appoint experts to access and analyse third-party data, particularly in financial or digital matters.

Pre-Action Disclosure

Unlike some common law jurisdictions, Polish civil law does not generally allow pre-action disclosure. However, evidence preservation motions can be filed prior to trial if there is a real risk that evidence may be lost or its use impeded. At the same time, courts may order a third party to disclose specific documents if they are essential for the claim and cannot be obtained otherwise. Such motions require demonstration of the relevance and urgency of the requested material.

In criminal investigations, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities have broad powers to obtain disclosure from third parties even before formal charges are filed. This includes seizing documents, financial records or digital data, and summoning third parties to produce evidence.

Pre-action disclosure is an integral part of the investigative phase in criminal fraud matters.

Restrictions on Use of Disclosed Material

Material disclosed through court orders or evidence preservation in civil proceedings is restricted to use within the specific case for which it was obtained. Polish courts strictly prohibit secondary use or public dissemination of such materials unless authorised by a separate ruling.

In criminal cases, evidence obtained from third parties is part of the criminal case file and is subject to procedural confidentiality until trial. Disclosure to victims, civil claimants or other parties is limited and controlled by the prosecutor or court. Use of such material outside the criminal proceedings requires express permission and may be restricted to prevent prejudice to the investigation. This restriction shall not apply to the use of disclosed material in other civil or criminal proceedings, including foreign proceedings. This issue should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Use of Without Notice Applications in Poland

Under Polish law, ex parte (without notice) applications are permitted, but they are used cautiously. Courts will consider such measures if notifying the defendant in advance would likely frustrate the intended protection, especially in cases involving fraud, imminent asset dissipation or the destruction of evidence.

Relief may take the form of freezing injunctions, orders for preserving evidence, or search and seizure requests in both criminal and urgent civil contexts. These measures are carefully scrutinised and typically granted only when absolutely necessary to prevent irreversible harm.

When Ex Parte Relief is Justified

Ex parte orders are appropriate in urgent situations where delay could result in the loss or concealment of critical rights or property. The element of surprise plays a key role in preserving the effectiveness of such relief. However, courts treat these applications as strictly temporary and subject to swift judicial review.

Duties and Protections

To balance the absence of the defendant, the claimant is held to a high standard of candour and must present all relevant information, including any facts that may not support their position. Courts may also require a security deposit or other form of financial assurance to mitigate the risk of harm if the order proves to be unjustified. In addition, a follow-up hearing is usually scheduled shortly after the order is granted to allow the defendant to respond and challenge the measure using the remedies available under Polish procedure.

Criminal Proceedings as a Recovery Tool

In Poland, fraud victims often turn to the criminal process not only to pursue justice but also to seek financial redress. Criminal proceedings are particularly effective when the defendant has hidden assets or when civil enforcement may be difficult. Victims can join the case as injured parties or civil claimants, enabling them to pursue compensation directly during the trial.

Interaction Between Criminal and Civil Proceedings

Civil and criminal cases can proceed in parallel. However, where the outcome of the criminal case is decisive for the civil matter, especially in establishing liability, a civil court may decide to suspend its proceedings. While this can cause delay, it often strengthens the civil claim by grounding it in a criminal conviction.

Importantly, evidence collected in criminal proceedings may be used in related civil cases, increasing procedural efficiency and evidentiary strength.

Civil Claims: Fast-Track Judgments

In Polish civil proceedings, certain procedural mechanisms allow claimants to secure the following judgments without a need for a full trial:

• default judgment – issued when the defendant fails to file a response or appear at the hearing, based solely on the claimant’s filings;
• payment order – granted in straightforward monetary disputes, where documentary evidence clearly confirms the claim; and
• summary dismissal of meritless defence – if the defence is evidently unfounded or abusive, the court can reject it without extensive proceedings in accordance with the general procedural rules.

Criminal Cases: No Conviction Without an Identified Offender

In criminal proceedings, Polish law prohibits the conviction of an unknown or absent perpetrator; a verdict can only be issued against an identified, formally charged individual.

However, during the investigative phase, prosecutors and courts can:

• secure, preserve and freeze assets believed to be linked to the crime; and
• obtain court orders declaring seized property (such as funds in the bank account) as evidence, enabling its retention for potential restitution or confiscation, even before the suspect is identified.

This mechanism allows victims to indirectly protect their financial interests while the investigation continues.

Higher Standard for Alleging Fraud

While there is no separate standard of proof in Poland for fraud allegations, professional conduct rules and judicial expectations impose a higher threshold of responsibility on parties and their counsel when fraud is pleaded. Legal representatives must avoid making unfounded or speculative allegations, particularly when they concern criminal acts or moral wrongdoing.

Lawyers are bound by the Code of Ethics for Advocates and Attorneys-at-Law, which prohibits the initiation of proceedings without legal or adequate factual justification. Making false or unverified accusations of fraud may result in professional disciplinary action or procedural sanctions, including adverse cost orders or dismissal of the claim.

Requirement for Cogent Evidence

In civil cases, the claimant must prove their claim on the basis of the preponderance of evidence. However, courts expect the claimant to provide clear, specific and credible evidence when allegations involve dishonesty or criminality, even though the formal evidentiary threshold remains civil. Courts may refuse to admit vague or broadly framed fraud claims lacking factual substantiation, as the court assesses the evidence in accordance with the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In criminal matters, fraud must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors bear the burden of presenting comprehensive, credible and consistent evidence that is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubts as to the defendant’s guilt. The court will carefully examine the reliability of witnesses, the authenticity of documents and the overall coherence of the case before issuing a conviction.

Under Polish civil procedure, it is generally not possible to initiate legal proceedings against unidentified fraudsters. The statement of claim must indicate at least minimal identifying details of the defendant (eg, name, business name, registered address). However, in civil cases where the perpetrator’s identity is initially unknown, a claimant can:

• initiate pre-trial evidence preservation measures (eg, securing documents); or
• where permitted by law, apply for disclosure orders against third parties to identify the perpetrator.

A claimant may file a claim against a person described only by certain characteristics (eg, “the person responsible for the unauthorised transfer from account X”) if the factual basis is strong and specific.

Once the identity is established, the claim can proceed against the named defendant. Unlike in some common law systems, Polish courts do not formally allow proceedings against “unknown person” in civil matters.

Investigative and Interim Measures

In contrast, under Polish criminal law it is fully permissible to initiate and conduct a criminal investigation against an unknown perpetrator. The prosecution service or police can open an investigation without knowing the suspect’s identity and issue asset freezing or evidence preservation measures in accordance with criminal procedure. In such cases, the prosecution must demonstrate that a criminal offence has been committed and that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the offence was committed by an as-yet-unidentified person.

To support such criminal cases, claimants may seek:

• disclosure orders against banks or telecom providers;
• the preservation of digital evidence; or
• criminal complaints that trigger prosecutorial investigative powers.

These tools can help to identify the unknown party and later amend the claim once the identity is revealed.

Court Powers to Compel Witnesses

In Polish civil proceedings, the court and the prosecutor have the authority to compel witnesses to appear and give testimony. Upon request by a party, the court issues a summons requiring the witness to attend a hearing and, after being instructed as to their rights and obligations, testify under oath. Refusal to appear without valid reason may result in fines, and persistent refusal can lead to compulsory escort by court bailiffs.

Obligations and Protections

Witnesses are legally obliged to testify truthfully. However, they may refuse to answer questions if doing so would expose them or close family members to criminal liability. In some cases, witnesses may also request that their identity or location remain confidential, especially in sensitive fraud or corruption cases.

Use in Civil and Criminal Matters

These powers apply equally in civil and criminal proceedings, although the procedural framework and the authorities competent to apply those measures are not identical. In criminal cases, prosecutors can compel testimony even at the investigation stage. In civil cases, the court’s role is reactive – it will compel a witness only upon formal application by a party and if the evidence is deemed relevant.

Criminal Liability

In addition to the personal liability of directors, officers or other individuals, Polish law also provides for the liability of collective entities under the separate statute governing the liability of collective entities for prohibited acts committed under penalty. Accordingly, liability may arise both on the side of the natural persons involved and on the side of the corporate entity itself. In a situation where the actions of members of the company’s management board result in a crime being committed, such members may be held criminally liable. The offences for which a member of the company’s management board may be held liable include:

• fraud;
• causing damage to business transactions;
• bribery;
• loan fraud;
• extortion of compensation;
• money laundering;
• frustrating or reducing the satisfaction of the creditor;
• favouring creditors;
• keeping unreliable documentation;
• causing the company’s insolvency; or
• tax crimes, such as non-payment of taxes.

Committing the above-mentioned offences may be punishable by imprisonment, fines or the restriction of liberty, depending on the nature and classification of the act.

Liability Under the Commercial Companies Code

Pursuant to the provisions of the applicable Commercial Companies Code, if enforcement against the limited liability company proves ineffective, the members of the management board are jointly and severally liable for the company’s obligations.

Civil Liability

The provisions of the Civil Code also provide for liability for damages of legal persons, including capital companies.

The beneficial owner may be liable under general rules if they are at fault for fraudulent conduct – ie, if they were personally involved in the fraudulent conduct, exercised relevant control over it, knowingly benefitted from it or otherwise satisfy the conditions for civil or criminal liability. Ex delicto liability is borne by anyone who, through their own fault, has caused damage to another. Such a beneficial owner may also be held liable under the provisions of the Penal Code for committing the crime of fraud, because on this account anyone who, in order to obtain a financial benefit, leads another person to dispose of their own or someone else’s property in an unfavourable way by misleading them or by taking advantage of an error or inability to properly understand the action taken is liable.

Principles of Claiming Against Directors

The directors of a company may be held liable for activities causing damage to that company, by the company itself. This is because any act undertaken by the members of the management board that results in damage to the company gives rise to certain claims by the company. In such cases, the liability of the board members is joint and several. If the company itself does not bring an action for compensation for the damage caused to it within a year from the date of disclosure of the act causing the damage, any member of the management board may bring an action for compensation for the damage caused to the company. Moreover, shareholders may file a claim for redress of damages, under general principles, against members of the management board who caused the damage.

Limitation Periods

Claims against members of the management board for damage caused to the company are subject to the limitation rules laid down in the Commercial Companies Code. A claim for redress of damage expires after three years from the date on which the company became aware of the damage and the person obliged to repair it. However, in any case, the claim expires ten years after the date on which the event causing the damage occurred.

Polish civil procedure permits the joinder of foreign defendants in fraud claims where there is a sufficient connection between the foreign party and the subject matter of the dispute. This may include cases where:

• the fraudulent act had effects in Poland;
• the assets in question are located in Poland; or
• the foreign party acted in concert with domestic defendants.

The joinder must comply with the rules on international jurisdiction, primarily under the EU Brussels I bis Regulation (for EU-based parties), or under bilateral or multilateral treaties for third countries. If no treaty applies, jurisdiction is assessed under the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, typically based on domicile, place of performance or where damage occurred.

In criminal cases, Polish courts may exercise jurisdiction over and prosecute foreign individuals and entities involved in fraud if:

• the offence was committed in whole or in part within territory of Poland;
• the offence produced effects on Polish territory; or
• the victim is a Polish citizen or entity and the offence is punishable in both jurisdictions, so the jurisdictional bases provided by the Penal Code apply.

This follows from provisions of the Polish Penal Code (Articles 110–114) governing territorial, personal and protective jurisdiction. Cross-border co-operation is facilitated through mutual legal assistance treaties, EU legal frameworks (eg, the European Arrest Warrant) and Interpol red notices.

Extraterritorial Reach of Polish Courts

Polish courts may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in civil fraud matters where there is a strong Polish nexus. This includes economic loss suffered in Poland or where key evidence or victims are located in Poland. However, courts are cautious in doing so and will examine whether there is a sufficient connecting factor to Poland under the relevant EU instrument, treaty or the Code of Civil Procedure.

Standard Procedure for Foreign Service

Service of documents in civil and commercial matters on parties located outside Poland depends on the destination country, as follows:

• within the EU, service is governed by the EU Service Regulation (2020/1784), enabling transmission through designated authorities;
• for non-EU states, Poland relies on the Hague Service Convention or relevant bilateral treaties; and
• if no treaty exists, service is conducted via diplomatic channels, which may be significantly slower.

In criminal cases, international service follows:

• the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its additional Protocols;
• bilateral treaties on legal assistance in criminal matters; and
• diplomatic channels via the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

EU Regulation 2020/1784 does not apply to criminal matters in the EU, but certain procedural acts can be executed under the European Investigation Order (EIO).

Alternative and Expedited Options

To speed up service, courts may authorise:

• service by electronic means, where accepted by the foreign state;
• service through foreign counsel or process servers; or
• publication or substitute service, in rare cases where the defendant cannot be located despite diligent efforts being made to do so.

Polish law also permits preliminary permission from the court to serve abroad, provided the claim is well grounded and contains sufficient details to identify the defendant’s location. The court will then proceed under the applicable EU instrument, international convention, treaty or domestic procedural rules.

Enforcement Proceedings

The basic method of law enforcement in Poland is judicial enforcement, carried out with the participation of a court bailiff. To commence enforcement proceedings, it is necessary to have an enforceable title, which is most often a court judgment with an enforcement clause or a notarial deed of voluntary submission to execution. The initiation of enforcement proceedings requires the submission of an appropriate application to the competent bailiff.

Execution Methods

Enforcement most commonly concerns the following categories of assets or rights:

• bank accounts;
• movable property;
• remuneration for work;
• retirement or disability benefits;
• immovable property;
• other property rights of the debtor (ie, copyright); and
• maritime assets such as seagoing vessels.

Administrative Enforcement

This type of enforcement is used in particular to enforce taxes, fines imposed by administrative authorities or social security contributions.

Recognition and Declaration of Enforceability of a Judgment

The process for enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland depends primarily on the state of origin of the judgment and on whether an applicable EU instrument or international treaty governs recognition and enforcement. For judgments issued in EU member states, enforcement is generally governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation. Such judgments are recognised in Poland without separate proceedings and, for enforcement purposes, no exequatur is required. In practice, the creditor will usually need to present a copy of the judgment together with the relevant certificate issued under the Regulation and, where necessary, a certified Polish translation. Enforcement is then carried out through the ordinary Polish enforcement system.

For judgments issued in non-EU states, the position is more formal. If an applicable international convention or bilateral treaty exists, that instrument will govern the process. If no such instrument applies, the matter is governed by the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. As a rule, a third-country judgment that is to be enforced in Poland must first be recognised or declared enforceable in Poland, depending on the relief sought. Once the judgment produces the required effect in Poland and the necessary enforcement formalities are completed, enforcement may proceed against assets located in Poland.

Right to Silence and Refusal to Disclose Information

Under Polish law, the constitutional guarantee most closely linked to protection against self-incrimination is the right of defence in criminal proceedings. A defendant in civil or criminal proceedings may invoke the constitutional right not to self-incriminate (Article 42(2) of the Constitution of Poland). This means a party cannot be compelled to provide information or documents that could expose them to criminal liability.

In civil cases, this privilege is more limited than in criminal proceedings. A party must clearly justify their refusal to comply with a court order on the basis that disclosure would directly risk criminal exposure. The court evaluates whether the refusal is proportionate and substantiated.

Consequences and Inferences

Unlike in criminal trials, civil courts may draw negative inferences from a party’s refusal to answer or provide information. This could influence the court’s assessment of credibility or be considered when evaluating circumstantial evidence. However, the court cannot treat the silence as direct proof of liability.

Scope of Legal Privilege in Poland

In Poland, communications between a lawyer and their client are protected by professional secrecy. This covers all correspondence and documents exchanged for the purpose of legal advice or representation. Lawyers cannot be compelled to disclose such information, and breach of this duty is both unethical and criminally punishable.

This privilege applies fully in both civil and criminal matters and is generally exempt from disclosure obligations, including in the discovery-like procedures available under Polish law.

The Fraud Exception

However, this protection does not extend to communications made for the purpose of committing or concealing a crime, including fraud. If it can be shown that legal advice was used to further a fraudulent scheme, courts may disregard the privilege and admit such materials as evidence.

This principle – known as the “crime-fraud exception” – is recognised in Polish jurisprudence, particularly in high-stakes financial crime cases. Prosecutors or civil courts may challenge the scope of privilege where there is credible evidence that legal services were misused to facilitate illegal conduct.

Damages, Redress and Exemplary Compensation

Under Polish criminal law, it is possible to seek damages and redress for harm. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Penal Code, in the event of a conviction, the court may adjudicate, and at the request of the victim or other entitled person shall order a mandatory (applying the provisions of civil law) obligation to redress, in whole or in part, the damage caused by the crime or provide compensation for the harm suffered. If the adjudication of the above obligations is significantly difficult, the court may instead order compensation for the benefit of the victim and, in the event of the victim’s death, also for the benefit of his or her next of kin. Therefore, the rules applicable to civil procedure apply to pursuing this type of claim in criminal proceedings.

Furthermore, the ruling on the above-mentioned damages or remedies does not block the possibility of pursuing the unsatisfied part of the claim in civil proceedings. It should be remembered, however, that adjudicating on damages or redress is additional in criminal procedures, as the basic role of criminal proceedings is to determine guilt and impose a penalty.

Polish banking law protects banking secrecy. The bank, its employees and persons through whom the bank performs banking activities are obliged to maintain banking secrecy. Banking secrecy covers all information concerning a banking activity that is obtained during negotiations and during the conclusion and performance of the agreement on the basis of which the bank performs this activity.

In criminal proceedings, banking secrecy may be lifted or displaced in the cases expressly provided by law, and the bank is required to disclose protected information upon a lawful request from the court or prosecutor in the circumstances specified in the Banking Law. The bank is obliged to provide information constituting banking secrecy at the request of a court or prosecutor in connection with pending proceedings for a crime or fiscal offence, or in connection with the execution of a request for legal assistance.

Fraud involving crypto-assets has become increasingly relevant in Poland. While crypto-assets are not legal tender, the regulatory environment is no longer as undeveloped as it once was, with the EU MiCA framework now applying across the Union. At the same time, the Polish domestic supervisory framework remains in a transitional phase. In February 2026, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority indicated that, during the transitional period under MiCA, certain entities may continue to operate under previously applicable national rules until 1 July 2026 or until they obtain or are refused authorisation, whichever occurs first.

From an asset recovery perspective, cases involving crypto-assets remain factually and evidentially difficult, especially where assets have been transferred across multiple wallets, platforms or jurisdictions. The main challenge is therefore the practical difficulty of tracing, identifying and securing the relevant assets and counterparties in time.