Cryptocurrency Crime in Poland: Prosecution Trends

Cryptocurrency crime means unlawful conduct in which a digital currency, crypto-asset wallet, exchange account, blockchain transaction or related infrastructure is used as the object, instrument or proceeds of an offence. In Poland, such cases are usually prosecuted under general criminal, fiscal and anti-money laundering rules, not under a single “crypto crime” statute.

For companies, investors and management boards, cryptocurrency crime Poland cases are no longer limited to private bitcoin fraud. Prosecutors increasingly analyse digital assets in matters concerning fraud, money laundering, tax settlements, sanctions circumvention, cyberattacks and asset concealment. The business risk is practical: frozen wallets, seized devices, blocked exchange accounts, reputational harm and personal liability of decision-makers.

Kopeć & Zaborowski (KKZ) observes that Polish proceedings involving digital currency often combine criminal law, tax law, cybersecurity, AML compliance and cross-border evidence. The key issue is not only whether crypto-assets moved between wallets, but whether the evidence proves intent, source of funds, beneficial ownership and awareness of unlawful origin.

How Polish prosecutors classify cryptocurrency crime

Polish law does not treat holding or transferring cryptocurrency as a criminal offence by itself. Liability depends on the factual context and the statutory elements of a specific offence.

The most common legal classifications include:

• Fraud under Article 286 § 1 of the Polish Criminal Code, for example investment scams, fake exchanges, false promises of guaranteed returns or impersonation schemes.
• Computer fraud under Article 287 § 1 of the Polish Criminal Code, where manipulation of data processing leads to financial gain.
• Money laundering under Article 299 of the Polish Criminal Code, where digital currency is used to conceal the criminal origin, ownership or location of assets.
• Unauthorised access and interference with data under Articles 267, 268a and 269a of the Polish Criminal Code, often relevant in wallet theft, phishing or malware cases.
• Fiscal offences under the Fiscal Penal Code, especially where income from crypto trading is concealed or incorrectly reported, depending on the facts and tax obligations.

In bitcoin fraud cases, prosecutors usually focus on misrepresentation, victim reliance and the causal link between deception and transfer of assets. In crypto tax evasion matters, the analysis is different. The central questions concern taxable events, records, intent, value calculation and whether the taxpayer submitted false information or failed to disclose relevant income.

Prosecution trends in bitcoin fraud and crypto scams

Fraud remains one of the most visible categories of cryptocurrency crime in Poland. Cases frequently involve fake brokers, social media investment groups, cloned websites, romance scams, recovery scams and phishing leading to wallet takeover. The technical form changes, but the evidentiary questions remain familiar: who induced the transfer, what was promised, what information was false and who controlled the receiving wallets.

Prosecutors increasingly request data from Polish and foreign exchanges, payment processors, banks, telecom operators and hosting providers. Blockchain analytics may help identify transaction paths, but it does not automatically identify a perpetrator. A wallet address is evidence of a transaction, not proof of a natural person’s intent. This distinction is important for suspects, victims and companies whose infrastructure was used by third parties.

Victims often expect immediate recovery of funds. In practice, speed matters. The chance of freezing digital currency decreases when assets are moved through mixers, cross-chain bridges, decentralised exchanges or multiple offshore platforms. Early reporting, preservation of transaction hashes, screenshots, emails, KYC data and bank transfer confirmations can materially affect the outcome.

More information on cyber-related criminal exposure is available at KKZ’s cybercrime practice page, and on fraud schemes at the scams practice page.

Money laundering and digital currency investigations

Digital currency is attractive in money laundering cases because it can move quickly and across borders. Under Article 299 of the Polish Criminal Code, liability may arise where a person accepts, transfers, converts or helps conceal assets derived from a prohibited act. The prosecution must still prove the required elements of the offence, including the connection with unlawful proceeds and the relevant mental element.

Polish AML rules also matter. The Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing covers certain activities involving virtual currencies, including exchange between virtual currencies and means of payment, exchange between virtual currencies, intermediation and maintaining virtual currency accounts [1]. Obligated institutions must apply customer due diligence, assess risk, report suspicious transactions to the General Inspector of Financial Information (GIIF) and maintain appropriate internal procedures.

For businesses, AML failures can create more than regulatory exposure. Weak customer verification, poor transaction monitoring or undocumented risk assessment may later become evidence in a criminal investigation. Management should be able to show who approved the relationship, what checks were performed and how alerts were handled.

Crypto tax evasion and fiscal enforcement

Crypto tax evasion cases usually concern undisclosed income, inaccurate reporting of gains, inability to document acquisition costs or use of foreign accounts and exchanges. In Poland, income from the disposal of virtual currencies is regulated in the Personal Income Tax Act and Corporate Income Tax Act, depending on the taxpayer [2], [3]. Criminal fiscal liability may arise under the Fiscal Penal Code, for example in connection with tax evasion or submitting untrue tax returns [4].

Three exceptions are often important in practice:

1. Exception 1: possession of cryptocurrency is not a crime by itself.
2. Exception 2: loss of funds does not automatically prove fraud.
3. Exception 3: tax exposure does not automatically mean crypto tax evasion.

These distinctions are not formal defences in every case. They help separate facts from legal conclusions. A failed investment may be a civil dispute, a tax error may require correction, and a wallet may belong to someone other than the person suspected. The classification depends on evidence.

Seizure, freezing and forfeiture of cryptocurrency

Polish authorities may seek to secure assets for future penalties, compensation, forfeiture or other financial measures. In criminal proceedings, property security is regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, including Article 291 and following provisions [5]. Forfeiture is regulated, among others, in Articles 44 and 45 of the Polish Criminal Code [6].

In crypto matters, practical enforcement depends on control. If assets are held on a centralised exchange, authorities may request freezing of the account. If assets are held in a non-custodial wallet, control over private keys, seed phrases, hardware wallets or connected devices becomes central. Incorrect handling of digital evidence can affect both asset recovery and defence strategy.

Further analysis of seizure and forfeiture issues is available in the article on cryptocurrency seizure and asset forfeiture in Poland.

What companies should monitor in cryptocurrency crime Poland cases

Companies exposed to digital currency transactions should focus on prevention and evidence readiness. The most relevant areas are:

• documented AML and sanctions screening procedures, adjusted to the risk profile;
• clear rules for accepting, holding and transferring crypto-assets;
• incident response procedures for fraud, phishing, wallet compromise and extortion;
• retention of logs, transaction records, IP data and communications;
• board-level reporting where crypto exposure may affect financial statements or reputation;
• training for finance, compliance, legal and customer support teams.

From a prosecution perspective, poor records create suspicion and delay. From a business perspective, they increase the cost of defence, reduce the chance of recovering assets and may expose management to allegations of negligence or knowing participation.

Defence and victim strategy in digital currency cases

A sound strategy starts with evidence mapping. For suspects, this means identifying wallet ownership, transaction purpose, source of funds, access rights, tax treatment and communications. For victims, it means securing transaction hashes, platform data, bank records, device evidence and correspondence before it disappears.

Legal assessment should also distinguish between facts, assumptions and blockchain analytics conclusions. Analytics tools can indicate clusters or risk exposure, but they are not a substitute for proof of intent, identity or criminal origin. In cross-border cases, mutual legal assistance and cooperation with exchanges may be decisive.

This is informational material, not legal advice. The assessment of cryptocurrency crime in Poland depends on the precise facts, evidence, legal classification and procedural stage of the case.

If a criminal matter involves digital assets, online evidence or payments connected with allegations of fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, cybercrime or another offence, it is advisable to consult a criminal lawyer early and obtain an assessment of the situation. A lawyer can help secure evidence, assess procedural risks and discuss possible next steps without promising any specific outcome.

FAQ: Cryptocurrency Crime in Poland

Is cryptocurrency illegal in Poland?

No. Holding, buying or selling cryptocurrency is not illegal by itself. Criminal liability may arise if digital currency is connected with fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, cybercrime or another offence.

What cryptocurrency crimes are frequently prosecuted in Poland?

Fraud is one of the most frequent categories discussed in practice, including bitcoin fraud, fake investment platforms, phishing, impersonation and scams involving false promises of profit.

Can Polish authorities seize cryptocurrency?

Yes. Depending on the facts, authorities may secure or seize assets for procedural purposes, compensation, penalties or forfeiture. The legal basis may include the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Polish Criminal Code.

Does a blockchain transaction prove who committed a crime?

Not by itself. A blockchain transaction proves movement between addresses. Additional evidence is needed to connect a wallet with a person, intent and the alleged offence.

Can incorrect crypto tax reporting lead to criminal liability?

Yes, but not every error is a crime. Liability depends on the taxpayer’s obligations, the amount involved, the accuracy of declarations and whether intent or another required mental element can be proven.

What should a victim of bitcoin fraud do first?

The victim should secure transaction hashes, wallet addresses, screenshots, emails, phone numbers, bank confirmations and platform data. Fast action may improve the chance of freezing assets.

Are crypto exchanges in Poland subject to AML duties?

Certain virtual currency service providers are subject to obligations under the Polish AML Act, including customer due diligence, risk assessment and suspicious transaction reporting.

Bibliography

1. Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Journal of Laws 2018, item 723, as amended.
2. Act of 26 July 1991 on Personal Income Tax, Journal of Laws 1991 No. 80, item 350, as amended.
3. Act of 15 February 1992 on Corporate Income Tax, Journal of Laws 1992 No. 21, item 86, as amended.
4. Act of 10 September 1999 – Fiscal Penal Code, Journal of Laws 1999 No. 83, item 930, as amended.
5. Act of 6 June 1997 – Code of Criminal Procedure, Journal of Laws 1997 No. 89, item 555, as amended.
6. Act of 6 June 1997 – Criminal Code, Journal of Laws 1997 No. 88, item 553, as amended.
7. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937.
8. Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets.