Poland

Polish law does not recognise fraud as an autonomous civil cause of action comparable to common law deceit. Depending on the circumstances, claimants typically rely on the following causes of action:

• Tort claims. The principal basis for recovering losses caused by fraudulent conduct. The claimant must establish unlawful conduct, fault, damage and a causal link.
• Avoidance of legal acts induced by fraud. A party whose declaration of intent was induced by fraud may avoid the legal act and seek restitution of transferred assets.
• Unjust enrichment. Available where assets or benefits were obtained without legal basis at the claimant’s expense.
• Actio Pauliana. Enables creditors to challenge transactions intended to frustrate enforcement or prejudice creditors.
• Proprietary claims. Owners may seek recovery of property or protection against unlawful interference with ownership rights.
• Contractual claims. Where fraudulent conduct also constitutes a breach of contractual obligations.
• Corporate and management liability claims. In appropriate circumstances, claims may be brought against directors, management board members or other persons responsible for fraudulent conduct causing loss to the company or creditors.

In practice, fraud cases frequently involve parallel reliance on tort, unjust enrichment, avoidance and proprietary claims.

Yes, statutory regimes are divided between civil protections and criminal/regulatory frameworks:

• The Penal Code. Features dedicated provisions criminalising financial misconduct, notably common fraud, insurance fraud, cyberfraud, capital/investment fraud, and money laundering.
• Commercial Companies Code. Imposes strict liability and management standards.
• The Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Contains tailored fast-track asset preservation rules.
• Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT Act (2018)). Establishes the regulatory regime for tracing and freezing suspicious financial flows through the General Inspector of Financial Information.

For defendants domiciled within the European Union, Polish courts assess jurisdiction strictly under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation No. 1215/2012). For non-EU defendants, domestic rules in the CCP apply. Generally, jurisdiction is established if:

• the defendant is domiciled or has its registered seat in Poland;
• Poland is the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur (including, subject to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the place of the causal event or, in appropriate circumstances, the place where the direct damage occurred);
• the dispute concerns the operations of a branch or agency located in Poland;
• the parties have validly agreed to the jurisdiction of the Polish courts; or
• jurisdiction is otherwise established under an applicable international treaty or EU instrument.

The principal connecting factors in international fraud and asset recovery cases are:

• Domicile, habitual residence or registered seat of the defendant. This remains the primary basis of jurisdiction under both the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Polish CCP.
• Place where the harmful event occurred (forum delicti). Jurisdiction may arise where the fraudulent conduct was committed or where the direct damage occurred. In cross-border fraud cases, Polish courts distinguish between the place of the causal event and the place where the damage materialised.
• Location of assets. Although the location of assets does not always constitute an independent jurisdictional ground, it is highly relevant for obtaining interim relief, enforcement measures and asset preservation orders. The presence of assets in Poland often makes Polish proceedings strategically attractive.

Polish courts determine the applicable law in cross-border fraud and asset recovery disputes by reference to the relevant EU conflict-of-law rules and, where those rules do not apply, the Polish Private International Law Act. As a general principle, contractual claims are governed by the law applicable to the contract, whereas tort and fraud claims are governed by the law most closely connected with the harmful event. In practice, different aspects of the same dispute may be subject to different legal systems. Regardless of the substantive law governing the claim, proceedings conducted before Polish courts remain subject to Polish procedural law.

Polish law allows for the tracing and identification of any asset class that possesses economic value, including:

• cash and balances held in domestic bank accounts;
• real estate;
• moveable property (e.g. vehicles, machinery, inventory);
• securities, corporate shares, financial instruments, and investment portfolios; and
• digital assets and cryptocurrencies.

Yes. The commingling of funds does not, in itself, prevent recovery. Although Polish law does not recognise equitable tracing, courts may reconstruct the movement of funds through documentary and banking evidence. The principal challenge is evidential rather than conceptual, as the claimant must establish a sufficient link between the original asset and the funds or assets ultimately received by the defendant.

Yes. Proprietary claims are recognised under Polish law, although the Polish legal system does not recognise common law concepts such as equitable tracing, constructive trusts or equitable liens. However, equivalent civil remedies exist such as rei vindicatio claims, negatory claims, unjust enrichment actions, avoidance remedies and other statutory mechanisms designed to restore assets to their lawful owner.

Polish law does not formally recognise tracing into substitutes through equitable doctrines. Courts focus on the factual relationship between the original asset and the substituted asset rather than on equitable tracing principles. Nevertheless, substituted assets may become recoverable through:

• ownership claims;
• unjust enrichment claims;
• avoidance actions;
• bankruptcy clawback mechanisms; and
• criminal confiscation proceedings.

Available measures include:

• freezing bank accounts;
• attachment of receivables;
• attachment of movable property;
• compulsory mortgages over real estate;
• prohibitions on disposal or encumbrance of assets;
• appointment of a compulsory administrator;
• deposit of disputed property with the court; and
• injunctions requiring or prohibiting specific conduct.

Polish law does not provide for broad common law-style disclosure or pre-trial discovery. Information gathering therefore relies on a combination of statutory mechanisms, public registers and investigative measures. Key tools include:

• Asset disclosure proceedings, which allow a creditor holding an enforceable title, and in certain circumstances a creditor who demonstrates that enforcement is likely to be ineffective, to compel the debtor to disclose assets and sources of income.
• Enforcement investigations conducted by court bailiffs, who have statutory powers to obtain information from banks, tax authorities, the Social Insurance Institution, land and mortgage registers, vehicle registers and other public databases.
• Public registers, including the National Court Register, the Land and Mortgage Register, the Central Register of Beneficial Owners and insolvency registers, which are frequently used to identify assets, ownership structures and related parties.
• Criminal proceedings, which are often an important source of evidence in fraud cases. Victims acting as injured parties may obtain access to parts of the case file and benefit from investigative measures undertaken by prosecutors and law enforcement authorities.

No general pre-action disclosure or third-party disclosure orders (like Norwich Pharmacal orders) are available in standard Polish civil proceedings. However, a prospective claimant may seek the preservation of evidence before commencing proceedings where there is a risk that evidence may subsequently become unavailable or difficult to obtain. In addition, fraud victims frequently initiate parallel criminal proceedings. Once recognised as an injured party, the victim may obtain access to parts of the criminal case file and benefit from investigative measures undertaken by prosecutors and law enforcement authorities.

Yes. Assistance depends on the origin of the foreign proceeding. When concerning EU Member States, Polish courts provide direct, streamlined assistance under Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. When it comes to non-EU states, assistance is handled via the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention or on the basis of reciprocity under bilateral treaties and Part VIII of the Polish CCP. Polish courts can examine witnesses, obtain local documents, or direct bailiffs to execute foreign-ordered inspections within Poland.

Cooperation within the EU framework is highly efficient and predictable due to standardised forms and direct court-to-court communication. Cooperation with non-EU jurisdictions takes significantly longer, often requiring processing through formal diplomatic channels or the Ministry of Justice.

Yes. The most common instruments utilised by practitioners include:

• Brussels I Recast Regulation (No. 1215/2012). For jurisdiction and enforcement within the EU.
• European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) (Regulation No. 655/2014). A vital tool allowing cross-border freezing of bank accounts across EU Member States.
• The 1970 Hague Evidence Convention. Used for taking evidence outside the EU.
• The 2007 Lugano Convention. Governing jurisdiction and judgments with Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland.

Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, a civil judgment rendered in an EU Member State is recognised and enforceable in Poland automatically, without requiring a declaration of enforceability. The claimant provides the judgment and the standard Article 53 certificate directly to a Polish bailiff.

Non-EU judgments are enforced via domestic procedures under Articles 1150–1152 of the CCP. The judgment is recognised by operation of law unless a specific statutory obstacle exists. The claimant must file a petition for an enforcement clause. The Polish court will verify public policy compliance but will not review the merits of the case.

The applicable procedure depends on whether the order is civil or criminal in nature and whether it originates from an EU Member State or a non-EU jurisdiction.

For civil proceedings, the enforcement of foreign freezing or other provisional measures is governed by the applicable EU instruments, international treaties or the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation framework, provisional measures issued by courts of EU Member States may be recognised and enforced in Poland, subject to the conditions set out in the Regulation, including the requirements applicable to ex parte measures.

In criminal matters, Poland applies the principle of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders issued by other EU Member States. Foreign criminal asset freezing and confiscation orders may therefore be recognised and executed by the competent Polish authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and applicable EU legislation.

Orders originating outside the EU generally require separate recognition proceedings unless an applicable treaty provides otherwise.

Polish insolvency law provides a number of tools that may assist in recovering assets dissipated through fraudulent or undervalue transactions. The bankruptcy trustee may challenge certain pre-insolvency transactions, seek the return of assets transferred out of the estate and pursue claims against persons responsible for causing losses to the debtor or its creditors.

Yes. Bankruptcy trustees and other officeholders may:

• challenge fraudulent transactions;
• recover transferred assets;
• pursue damages claims;
• investigate management misconduct; and
• cooperate with prosecutors and regulators.

Yes. The Bankruptcy Law contains provisions allowing avoidance of transactions that unfairly prejudice creditors.

Yes. Civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously. Findings in one proceeding may influence the other but do not automatically determine the outcome.

Polish law does not currently provide for a standalone civil confiscation regime comparable to those existing in certain common law jurisdictions. Asset forfeiture remains primarily linked to criminal proceedings and criminal confiscation mechanisms. Confiscation may extend beyond directly identified criminal proceeds in certain circumstances, particularly in organised crime and serious economic crime cases.

Yes, victims have strong procedural rights in Polish criminal proceedings, as they can act as an auxiliary prosecutor, allowing them to introduce evidence, question witnesses, and appeal rulings. Under Article 46 of the Penal Code, the criminal court can, and upon the victim’s formal motion must, order the convicted fraudster to pay redress/reparation for the damage caused directly to the victim within the criminal sentence, acting as an enforceable civil title. Additionally, where funds seized in a bank account can be proven to belong to the victim and to originate from the criminal offence, such funds may be released and returned to the victim even before the offender is convicted, provided that they are no longer required for the purposes of the criminal proceedings.

Recovered assets may be returned directly to victims through civil proceedings, restitution orders in criminal proceedings, or insolvency distributions. Where multiple victims or creditors exist, distribution is generally governed by the applicable insolvency or enforcement rules. Assets confiscated in criminal proceedings do not automatically pass to victims, who must usually assert their claims separately through compensation or restitution mechanisms.

There is no specific limitation period for fraud claims under Polish law. The applicable period depends on the legal basis of the claim. Tort claims generally become time barred three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and the person liable for it. However, where the damage results from a criminal offence (whether a felony or misdemeanour), the claim is subject to a 20-year limitation period running from the date the offence was committed.

Contractual and unjust enrichment claims are subject to the general limitation rules of the Civil Code, typically six years, or three years for claims connected with business activities.

Fraud does not automatically suspend limitation periods. However, limitation may effectively be postponed where the claimant could not reasonably discover the fraud or identify the wrongdoer. Limitation periods may also be interrupted by commencing court proceedings, enforcement proceedings or certain acknowledgements of debt. In some cases involving criminal offences, longer limitation periods may apply.

Common defences include:

• limitation;
• lack of causation;
• absence of fraud or unlawful conduct;
• lack of standing;
• good-faith acquisition of assets;
• challenges to ownership or title;
• evidential deficiencies; and
• jurisdictional objections.

Available remedies include:

• compensatory damages;
• restitution of assets;
• vindicatory and proprietary claims;
• avoidance of transactions induced by fraud;
• unjust enrichment remedies;
• declaratory relief; and
• restitution and compensation orders in criminal proceedings.

No. Polish law is a civil law system strictly bound by the closed list of property rights and does not recognise common law equitable remedies such as constructive trusts or equitable liens. Similar practical outcomes must be achieved through civil law mechanisms, including asset vindicatory claims, unjust enrichment actions, Actio Pauliana, or bankruptcy clawback provisions.

Recovered assets may be realised through judicial enforcement proceedings conducted by court bailiffs, insolvency proceedings or criminal enforcement mechanisms. Distribution depends on the nature of the claim and the existence of competing creditors. In insolvency proceedings, distribution follows the statutory ranking of claims.

Yes. Successful claimants are entitled to statutory interest for delay calculated from the date the payment demand became overdue.

Litigation and legal costs are recoverable under the “loser pays” principle. However, recoverable attorney fees are limited by mandatory Ministry of Justice tariffs based on the dispute value, meaning that the actual legal costs incurred in complex fraud litigation are often not fully compensated.

The jurisdiction offers effective interim relief, reliable public registers and strong judicial cooperation mechanisms within the European Union. However, the lack of pre-trial discovery or Norwich Pharmacal-style disclosure orders means claimants must build their case up front. Civil courts are strictly formalistic regarding the burden of proof, and litigation can be slow.

Courts are legally required to review urgent ex parte freezing applications within seven days of filing. Although this statutory deadline is not always observed in practice, applications for security are generally handled on an expedited basis and urgent interim measures may often be obtained within days. Applications for security are frequently decided without notice to the respondent.

Costs typically include court fees, legal fees, expert fees, translation costs and enforcement expenses. Third-party litigation funding is not specifically regulated but is generally permissible and increasingly encountered in high-value disputes. Contingency fee arrangements are permitted only to a limited extent and cannot consist solely of a success fee.

Pitfalls include the following:

• Preclusion of evidence. Parties should present all available facts and evidence as early as possible. Courts may disregard evidence submitted at a later stage where the party could reasonably have presented it earlier and the late submission would delay the proceedings.
• Strict Power of Attorney rules. Polish courts demand impeccable, continuous chains of corporate authority for foreign signatories. A failure to provide apostilled/legalised corporate extracts and precise powers of attorney can lead to immediate dismissal of an urgent freezing application on formal grounds.
• Service formalities. Attempting to serve ex parte orders without certified translations or ignoring international service treaties may result in delays, procedural challenges or refusal of recognition and enforcement.

Recent developments have focused on strengthening anti-money laundering measures, beneficial ownership transparency and cross-border asset recovery. Poland is also expected to continue implementing EU asset recovery initiatives, including measures arising from Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation. Legislative attention has also been directed towards cybercrime, cryptocurrency-related offences and economic crime enforcement.

The general trend is towards expanding recovery mechanisms, particularly in relation to economic crime, money laundering and organised crime. While Polish law continues to reject common law tracing doctrines, courts and enforcement authorities increasingly make use of interim measures, confiscation tools and cross-border cooperation mechanisms to facilitate asset recovery.

Polish courts are seeing an unprecedented volume of cross-border wire fraud cases involving modified invoice schemes, authorised push payment (APP) fraud, and compromised corporate emails. These cases frequently involve urgent cooperation with banks, payment institutions and law enforcement authorities in order to identify and preserve funds before they leave the Polish banking system.