Asset Recovery and Seizure in Poland: How Authorities Act

Asset recovery in Poland is the legal process of identifying, freezing, securing, confiscating, and ultimately returning or enforcing against assets connected with a suspected offence, damage, or unlawful financial benefit. In criminal cases, it is not limited to cash. It may cover bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, shares, receivables, cryptocurrency, business equipment, and other property with economic value.

For companies and managers, asset seizure is often as important as the criminal allegation itself. A blocked account can interrupt payroll, supplier payments, financing covenants, and business continuity. Property confiscation may also affect third parties, including shareholders, lenders, contractual counterparties, and family members of suspects.

This is informational material, not legal advice. The correct assessment depends on the facts, the procedural stage, and the exact legal basis used by the authority.

Asset seizure, freezing bank accounts, and property confiscation – key differences

Polish law uses several mechanisms that are sometimes described in business language as “asset recovery” or “asset seizure.” They serve different purposes.

• Seizure of things – physical or documentary seizure of items that may constitute evidence or be subject to forfeiture. The main procedural basis is Article 217 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure [1].
• Security on property – a measure securing future penalties, compensation, forfeiture, court costs, or other financial consequences. It is regulated mainly in Articles 291-295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [1].
• Freezing bank accounts – a fast measure used where funds may be connected with money laundering, terrorist financing, another offence, or specific tax-law risks. It may involve the prosecutor, the General Inspector of Financial Information, a bank acting under statutory duties, or the Head of the National Revenue Administration under STIR rules [3], [4], [5].
• Property confiscation – a court-ordered consequence, usually linked with conviction, concerning objects, proceeds, or benefits from crime. The main provisions are Articles 44, 44a, and 45 of the Criminal Code [2].

How Polish authorities identify assets

Asset recovery Poland proceedings usually begin with financial tracing. Prosecutors, Police, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Internal Security Agency, and the National Revenue Administration may analyse bank transfers, invoices, accounting records, tax data, beneficial ownership information, corporate links, and real estate registers.

In economic crime and white-collar crime cases, the authorities often look for a connection between the alleged offence and a specific financial benefit. This connection should be based on facts, not assumptions. However, at the early stage of proceedings the evidentiary threshold for freezing or securing assets may be lower than the threshold required for conviction.

Authorities may also rely on notifications from banks and obliged institutions under anti-money laundering rules. The Act on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing allows the General Inspector of Financial Information to demand suspension of a transaction or blocking of an account in statutory situations [3]. The Banking Law also imposes duties on banks where there is a justified suspicion that funds may be connected with a criminal offence [4].

Freezing bank accounts in Poland

Freezing bank accounts is one of the most disruptive forms of asset seizure. In practice, it may happen before the company has full access to the case file or before management understands the exact suspicion. The immediate effect can be loss of liquidity.

Under AML rules, the General Inspector of Financial Information may suspend a transaction or block an account when statutory grounds are met, including suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing [3]. Separately, banks may act under the Banking Law and notify the prosecutor if they suspect that funds may derive from or be connected with an offence [4]. In tax-risk cases, a separate regime allows the Head of the National Revenue Administration to block a qualified entity’s account under STIR provisions [5]. Prosecutorial decisions may then extend the freeze for the period allowed by law.

For a business, the key questions are practical and legal:

• which account or assets are covered,
• what exact legal basis was used,
• whether the decision identifies the alleged offence and factual grounds,
• whether the value of blocked assets is proportionate,
• whether operational funds, wages, taxes, or third-party money are affected,
• what complaint or modification request is available.

Security on property during criminal proceedings

Security on property may be imposed if the authorities need to secure the enforcement of a potential fine, compensation, forfeiture, or other financial obligation. Article 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the central provision [1]. The decision is usually issued by the prosecutor during the investigation and may be challenged.

The security may cover real estate mortgages, bank accounts, movable assets, receivables, shares, and other rights. It should correspond to the likely financial exposure. If the alleged damage is PLN 1 million, securing assets far beyond that value should be examined from the perspective of proportionality and statutory purpose.

Kopeć & Zaborowski (KKZ) lawyers regularly assess such measures not only as criminal defence issues, but also as business continuity risks. In corporate cases, the defence strategy must address legal grounds, evidence, liquidity, contractual deadlines, reporting duties, and reputational exposure at the same time.

Property confiscation and extended confiscation

Property confiscation is not the same as temporary freezing. Forfeiture may concern objects used or intended for committing an offence, objects derived from an offence, and financial benefits obtained from crime [2]. Under Article 45 of the Criminal Code, the court may order forfeiture of benefits or their equivalent value [2].

Polish law also provides for extended confiscation. In certain cases, property acquired by the perpetrator or taken into possession in the period of 5 years before committing the offence until the issuance of a judgment, even a non-final one, may be presumed to originate from criminal benefit, unless the person concerned demonstrates lawful origin. The application of this mechanism depends on the type of offence, value, timing, and evidence [2].

In business cases, this may affect assets transferred to related persons, companies, trusts, foundations, or family members. The authorities will typically examine whether the transfer was real, paid for at market value, and economically justified, or whether it was used to conceal assets.

The three exceptions that often matter

Authorities do not have unlimited discretion. The three exceptions are:

1. Property subject to return to an injured party or another entitled person should not be confiscated – this follows from Article 44 § 5 of the Criminal Code [2].
2. Security on property is limited by enforcement rules – Article 292 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure links the method of security with civil enforcement rules, including statutory exclusions and limits [1].
3. Enterprise confiscation has statutory safeguards – under Article 44a of the Criminal Code, forfeiture of an enterprise depends on strict conditions, including a material benefit of significant value, use of the enterprise to commit the offence or conceal the benefit, ownership or third-party awareness, and proportionality [2].

Each exception requires evidence. A third party asserting lawful ownership should be ready to show documents, payment history, accounting treatment, source of funds, and the business reason for the transaction.

How to respond to asset recovery actions

The first step is to obtain and analyse the decision, protocol, or notification. The defence should verify the authority, date, legal basis, scope of assets, alleged offence, and available remedy. Deadlines may be short.

In many cases, the response should combine several actions:

• filing a complaint against seizure, freezing, or security,
• requesting limitation of the measure to a lower amount,
• showing lawful origin of funds,
• separating company money from personal funds of a suspect,
• protecting assets of third parties,
• securing funds necessary for salaries, taxes, or essential operations,
• coordinating criminal defence with civil, tax, employment, and compliance risks.

Asset recovery in Poland is evidence-heavy. General statements that funds are legitimate are rarely enough. Bank records, contracts, invoices, tax returns, board approvals, beneficial ownership documents, and audit trails often decide whether an authority maintains, limits, or lifts a measure.

CTA

If asset seizure appears in a broader criminal case, including economic crime, fraud, AML, or tax proceedings, early legal assessment can help separate procedural facts from allegations and protect third-party property. To consult a matter, obtain an assessment of the situation, or discuss possible steps with a criminal lawyer, contact the team through criminallawpoland.com/contact/.

FAQ – Asset Recovery and Seizure in Poland

What is asset recovery in Poland?

Asset recovery in Poland means identifying, freezing, securing, confiscating, or returning assets connected with suspected crime, damage, or unlawful financial benefit. It may involve prosecutors, courts, financial intelligence authorities, banks, tax authorities, and enforcement bodies.

Can Polish authorities freeze a company bank account?

Yes. A company account may be blocked under AML rules, Banking Law procedures, STIR tax-law procedures, or as part of security on property in criminal proceedings. The exact remedy depends on the legal basis and the authority that issued or triggered the measure.

Is asset seizure the same as confiscation?

No. Asset seizure or freezing is usually temporary and procedural. Confiscation, also called forfeiture, is generally a court-ordered consequence concerning proceeds, objects, benefits, or equivalent value linked with an offence.

Can assets of third parties be affected?

Yes, but statutory conditions apply. Authorities may examine whether a third party acquired assets in good faith, paid market value, knew about the offence, or helped conceal criminal benefits. Documents proving lawful ownership are essential.

How quickly should a company react to freezing bank accounts?

Immediately. Deadlines for complaints or procedural motions may be short, and operational losses may grow daily. The first priority is to identify the legal basis, scope, amount, and available remedy.

Can seized assets be released before the end of the criminal case?

Yes, in some cases. The authority or court may lift, limit, or modify the measure if statutory grounds no longer exist, the amount is excessive, assets belong to a third party, or lawful origin is demonstrated.

Bibliography

1. Act of 6 June 1997 – Code of Criminal Procedure, Journal of Laws 1997 No. 89, item 555, as amended.
2. Act of 6 June 1997 – Criminal Code, Journal of Laws 1997 No. 88, item 553, as amended.
3. Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Journal of Laws 2018, item 723, as amended.
4. Act of 29 August 1997 – Banking Law, Journal of Laws 1997 No. 140, item 939, as amended.
5. Act of 29 August 1997 – Tax Ordinance, Journal of Laws 1997 No. 137, item 926, as amended.
6. Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on asset recovery and confiscation.
7. Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders.