Plea Bargaining in Poland: Voluntary Submission to Penalty

Plea bargaining in Poland is a court-supervised procedure that allows an accused person to seek a conviction and a specified penalty without conducting evidentiary proceedings in full. In Polish criminal procedure, this mechanism is known as voluntary submission to penalty and, at the trial stage, is regulated primarily by Article 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.[1]

The expression “plea bargain” should be used carefully. Polish law does not reproduce the American model, in which a guilty plea may be negotiated in exchange for reduced charges or a particular sentence. A Polish court remains responsible for determining whether the statutory conditions are met, whether the circumstances of the offence and the accused person’s guilt are clear, and whether the proposed outcome is lawful.

For an accused person, a negotiated sentence may reduce the duration, cost and uncertainty of proceedings. For a company or manager facing white-collar crime allegations, it may also affect business continuity, access to evidence, reputational exposure and the ability to close an internal crisis. The decision should therefore follow a detailed assessment of the evidence, the potential penalty, compensation claims and collateral consequences.

What is voluntary submission to penalty under Article 387?

Article 387 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure permits an accused in a case concerning an offence punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 15 years to apply for a conviction and a specified penalty without conducting evidentiary proceedings in full at trial.[1]

The application may also concern penal measures, compensatory measures or forfeiture. This is important in economic crime cases, where the financial consequences of a judgment may be as commercially significant as a fine or imprisonment. For example, the court may need to address a duty to redress damage, compensation for harm, forfeiture of proceeds, or the consequences of a prohibition on holding a position or conducting a particular activity.

Article 387 does not require the court to accept a request simply because the accused admits the allegations or proposes a penalty. The court controls the process. It must consider whether the objectives of the criminal proceedings can be achieved and must take into account the legally protected interests of the injured party.

When can an accused request a negotiated sentence?

The request must be made no later than the completion of the first questioning of all accused persons at the main hearing. This deadline is strict in practice. A defence strategy should therefore be prepared before the first substantive hearing, not after the evidentiary process has already developed unfavourably.

A voluntary submission request should identify the proposed penalty and any other proposed measures. The application should be consistent with the available evidence and should address the injured party’s position where compensation or restitution is relevant.

The procedure can be especially relevant where the evidentiary record is strong and a contested trial is unlikely to improve the accused person’s position. It can also be considered where a company’s officer needs a predictable procedural timetable. Predictability, however, is not the same as certainty: the prosecutor, injured party and court each have roles that may prevent approval.

Three statutory barriers to approval under Article 387

Article 387 contains three decisive barriers that must be assessed before relying on voluntary submission to penalty:

1. Doubts concerning the facts or guilt. The court cannot approve the request if the circumstances of the offence or the accused person’s guilt raise doubts. The procedure is not intended to replace fact-finding in a disputed or unclear case.
2. Objection by the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s objection prevents approval. Discussions with the prosecutor may therefore be necessary, but no informal discussion binds the court or guarantees a result.
3. Objection by a properly notified injured party. The injured party must be properly informed about the hearing and instructed that the accused may make an Article 387 request. If that person objects, the court cannot grant the application.

In addition, the court must conclude that the goals of the proceedings can be achieved despite not conducting evidentiary proceedings in full. It must also take into account the legally protected interests of the injured party.[1] These requirements mean that a negotiated sentence may be unsuitable where the alleged conduct caused extensive damage, involves multiple victims, requires complex evidence, or raises unresolved questions about the scope of liability.

The court’s role in a plea bargain in Poland

The court is not a passive recipient of an agreement. Under Article 387, it may make approval conditional on the accused accepting changes to the proposed request. If the accused accepts the court’s proposed modifications, the request may be granted in the amended form.[1]

The court must also verify whether the proposed penalty complies with the Criminal Code. This includes rules on fines, restriction of liberty, imprisonment, probation, compensatory measures and forfeiture. A suspended sentence may be legally possible only where the statutory prerequisites for conditional suspension are fulfilled. It is not an automatic element of a negotiated sentence.[2]

For business decision-makers, this judicial control matters. A proposed settlement that overlooks financial redress, forfeiture exposure or a possible penal measure may create a false impression that the case is resolved. The final judgment, rather than the parties’ preliminary expectations, determines the legal consequences.

Article 387 versus Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 335 and Article 387 are often discussed together, but they operate at different stages.

• Article 335 concerns a prosecutor’s request made at the end of preparatory proceedings, either instead of an indictment or together with an indictment, for a conviction at a sitting without a trial. It generally requires the accused person’s agreement and the fulfilment of statutory conditions.[1]
• Article 387 applies at the main-hearing stage. The accused submits the request directly in the trial proceedings.

Both procedures can shorten proceedings, but neither should be treated as an administrative formality. In particular, an accused person should understand the evidentiary basis of the allegation, the full content of the proposed judgment, the injured party’s claims and the practical impact of a conviction. This is particularly relevant in cases involving regulated professions, management functions, public procurement, banking relationships or cross-border reporting obligations.

Practical risks before applying for voluntary submission

A request under Article 387 may be strategically justified, but it is not risk-free. A conviction can affect reputation, future commercial relationships and the ability to perform certain functions. In white-collar cases, separate internal investigations, disciplinary consequences, civil claims and regulatory notifications may continue after the criminal judgment.

Before making a request, the defence should review the following:

• the legal classification of the alleged conduct and the available evidence;
• the proposed penalty, compensation, forfeiture and penal measures;
• the prosecutor’s and injured party’s likely positions;
• the consequences of conviction for employment, licences, corporate governance and reputation;
• whether a full defence at trial offers a realistic prospect of a better outcome.

This is informational material, not legal advice. The appropriate course depends on the allegations, evidence and procedural stage in the individual case.

Before deciding on voluntary submission to penalty, an early assessment of procedural options and evidentiary risks is particularly important. To obtain an assessment of the situation or discuss possible steps, it may be appropriate to consult the case with a criminal defence lawyer. Kopeć & Zaborowski (KKZ) lawyers assess the legal and practical consequences of available procedural options.

FAQ – Plea Bargaining in Poland

Is plea bargaining legal in Poland?

Yes, but it does not operate like US-style plea bargaining. Polish procedure provides for voluntary submission to penalty, including under Article 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to judicial control and statutory conditions.

Can Article 387 be used for every criminal offence?

No. Article 387 applies where the offence is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 15 years. Whether this condition is met depends on the statutory penalty applicable to the offence charged.

Does an Article 387 request guarantee a lighter sentence?

No. The court determines whether to approve the request and whether the proposed penalty is lawful. The procedure may support a predictable resolution, but it does not guarantee a particular sentence.

Can the injured party stop voluntary submission to penalty?

Yes. If a properly notified injured party objects to the request, the court cannot grant it under Article 387.

What happens if the prosecutor objects?

The court cannot approve the Article 387 request if the prosecutor objects. The case will generally continue under the ordinary trial procedure unless another lawful procedural route becomes available.

Is Article 387 available after the trial has started?

Yes, but only until the completion of the first questioning of all accused persons at the main hearing. Missing this deadline prevents the use of Article 387.

Bibliography

[1] Act of 6 June 1997 – Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular Articles 335 and 387, consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 46, as amended.

[2] Act of 6 June 1997 – Criminal Code, in particular provisions on penalties, penal measures, compensatory measures, forfeiture and conditional suspension of imprisonment, consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 383, as amended.