Seizure and Confiscation of Crypto Assets in Poland: Criminal Law, AML Obligations and Defence Strategies

The rapid growth of the crypto-asset ecosystem has fundamentally changed the way value is stored and transferred across borders. At the same time, it has forced prosecutors, regulators and defence lawyers in Poland to rethink traditional tools used in criminal law, especially in the context of seizure and confiscation of crypto assets, AML obligations and cross‑border enforcement. For market participants, the legal landscape is becoming more complex, not less.

In practice, digital assets are no longer a niche issue. They appear in cases involving fraud, money laundering, organised crime, but also in high‑value civil and commercial disputes. For international investors, exchanges, custodians and high‑net‑worth individuals with exposure to Poland, understanding the framework for crypto asset seizure and confiscation is now a critical element of risk management and defence strategy.

This article provides a structured, practitioner‑oriented overview of how Polish authorities approach the seizure and freezing of crypto assets, how AML criminal liability is constructed, and what realistic defence strategies are available. It is written from the perspective of a defence lawyer with experience in white‑collar crime, asset recovery and cross‑border proceedings, assisting both individual and institutional clients facing investigations that involve crypto assets in Poland.

How are crypto assets legally classified in Poland for criminal and AML purposes?

Polish law does not yet offer a single, comprehensive statutory definition of crypto assets. Instead, a functional approach is used, drawing from EU law (in particular the AML Directives and the upcoming MiCA framework) and sectoral regulations. For criminal law and AML obligations, the key notion is that of a virtual currency, defined in the Act on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing as a digital representation of value not issued by a central bank, accepted as a means of exchange and capable of being transferred, stored and traded electronically.

In criminal proceedings, most crypto assets are treated as a form of property – an asset that can be seized, frozen and ultimately confiscated as an instrumentality or proceeds of crime. Courts and prosecutors focus less on the technological specifics of a blockchain and more on whether the asset represents an economically valuable right attributable to a suspect or third party.

This classification has direct consequences for AML criminal liability. Once a crypto asset is deemed property originating from a predicate offence (for example, fraud, corruption or tax crime), it can be the object of money laundering. Professional market participants – such as virtual asset service providers (VASPs) – are obliged to treat crypto transactions as potentially high‑risk from an AML perspective, with enhanced due diligence and reporting duties.

What are the main legal bases for seizure and confiscation of crypto assets in Poland?

The Polish Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure provide the general legal bases for the seizure and confiscation of assets, which are interpreted and applied to crypto assets. Interim measures such as freezing or seizure (Polish: zabezpieczenie majątkowe) may be ordered to secure future penalties, fines, compensatory measures or forfeiture of property.

Confiscation (forfeiture) can target both the direct proceeds of crime and assets that replaced them, as well as tools used to commit the offence. Importantly, extended confiscation rules, aligned with EU standards, allow authorities to target property whose lawful origin cannot be credibly explained, under certain conditions. These mechanisms are increasingly applied to crypto wallets and exchange accounts linked to alleged criminal activity.

In parallel, the AML Act complements criminal provisions by establishing powers for supervisory bodies and obliging institutions to freeze transactions or accounts when there is a justified suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing. In practice, AML‑driven freezing often precedes or runs in parallel to the criminal seizure of crypto assets.

Which authorities can order seizure or freezing of crypto assets in Poland?

At the investigative stage, prosecutors and, under their supervision, law enforcement agencies (such as the police or specialised financial crime units) may order the seizure or freezing of property, including crypto assets, to secure future confiscation or compensation for victims. Such measures are usually subject to subsequent judicial review by a criminal court.

Courts play a central role in deciding on the legitimacy and scope of asset seizure and later confiscation. They assess whether there is a sufficient connection between the assets and the alleged offence, and whether the measure is proportionate. For foreign parties, it is crucial to understand that Polish courts can act upon requests from other EU Member States and – under international cooperation instruments – from third countries, leading to cross‑border freezing of crypto assets held or controlled in Poland.

Supervisory and administrative bodies, in particular the General Inspector of Financial Information (GIIF), may order temporary freezing of transactions or accounts under AML regulations. For VASPs, banks, payment institutions and other obliged entities, these decisions are binding and often trigger immediate operational consequences, including suspension of withdrawals and transfers of crypto assets.

How is AML criminal liability constructed in relation to crypto assets?

AML criminal liability in Poland is primarily based on the offence of money laundering and on specific violations of duties stipulated in the AML Act. In the crypto context, liability can arise for both direct participation in laundering schemes (e.g. layering funds through multiple wallets or mixers) and for failing to implement required AML procedures.

Individual liability may attach to persons who, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that crypto assets originate from crime, undertake actions aimed at concealing their origin, owner or destination. This encompasses sending or receiving funds via exchanges, OTC brokers or DeFi protocols, if such activity forms part of a scheme to legitimise illicit proceeds.

Corporate and managerial liability emerges when VASPs, exchanges or other obliged institutions do not comply with AML obligations: customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, reporting of suspicious activity, maintaining registers of beneficial owners or implementing internal controls. In serious cases, negligent or intentional breaches can result in fines, administrative sanctions, reputational damage and, potentially, criminal responsibility of decision‑makers.

What AML obligations apply to crypto service providers and financial institutions?

Under Polish AML law, virtual asset service providers are treated as obliged entities, similar to banks and other financial institutions. They must implement risk‑based customer due diligence (CDD), including robust KYC procedures, verification of the beneficial owner and ongoing monitoring of business relationships involving crypto assets.

Obliged entities must identify and report suspicious transactions to the GIIF, especially where there are indicators of money laundering, fraud or sanctions evasion. Transactions involving high‑risk jurisdictions, privacy‑enhancing coins, mixers or unusually complex chains of transfers should trigger enhanced scrutiny and documentation.

Additionally, exchanges and custodial wallet providers are expected to maintain internal AML policies, appoint a compliance officer, train staff and ensure that IT systems can trace and analyse patterns in crypto transactions. Non‑compliance is not merely a regulatory inconvenience; in serious cases, it can lead to allegations that the institution facilitated or enabled AML criminal offences.

How do authorities actually seize and manage crypto assets in practice?

From a technical perspective, seizure of crypto assets usually focuses on securing control over private keys, seed phrases or access credentials to exchange accounts. During searches, law enforcement may confiscate hardware wallets, laptops, smartphones or backup devices, and may compel disclosure of passwords subject to procedural safeguards and constitutional limits.

Where crypto assets are held on centralised exchanges or with custodial service providers, prosecutors often serve formal orders to freeze accounts or block withdrawals. Cooperation with exchanges – including those based abroad but operating in Poland – is crucial to prevent rapid dissipation of funds. This is particularly relevant in cases with strong cross‑border elements, where assets may move through multiple jurisdictions within minutes.

Managing seized crypto assets poses additional challenges. Authorities must minimise the risk of loss, theft or market volatility. In some cases, seized coins may be transferred to special government‑controlled wallets, with strict security protocols. Questions regarding valuation, conversion to fiat currency and allocation of proceeds following confiscation remain evolving areas of practice, often requiring specialist legal and technical advice.

What defence strategies are available when crypto assets are seized or frozen?

Effective defence strategies in cases involving seizure and confiscation of crypto assets require a combination of legal, factual and technical arguments. A core line of defence is to challenge the alleged link between the assets and the suspected offence – for example by showing a legitimate origin of funds, documented investment history or tax declarations.

Another important approach is to test whether procedural standards have been respected: whether the seizure order was properly justified, proportionate, issued by a competent authority and subject to timely judicial review. Defence counsel can request modification or lifting of interim measures, especially if the seizure jeopardises the legitimate business activities of the client or affects third‑party property rights.

In complex or cross‑border scenarios, coordination of defence across multiple jurisdictions is essential. Discrepancies between national definitions of crypto assets, AML rules and confiscation standards may open room for argument, including under EU law and human‑rights‑based protections of property. A sophisticated defence often relies on forensic blockchain analysis, expert opinions and detailed transaction tracing.

How can individuals and companies mitigate AML and seizure risks proactively?

For individuals and companies operating in or with Poland, the best protection against intrusive asset seizure and AML criminal liability is a proactive compliance strategy. This includes documenting the origin of funds used to acquire crypto assets, retaining transaction records and ensuring tax and regulatory transparency.

Professional market participants – in particular VASPs, fintechs, payment institutions and high‑volume traders – should invest in robust AML and sanctions compliance programmes. These should integrate blockchain analytics tools, risk scoring, clear escalation procedures and regular independent audits. Well‑designed policies not only reduce the risk of investigations, but also provide a solid evidentiary basis if scrutiny arises.

Polish and international clients facing or anticipating exposure to the Polish system may significantly benefit from early engagement with defence counsel. Tailored advice allows them to adjust business models, contract structures and internal controls to minimise the likelihood and impact of crypto asset seizure and subsequent confiscation.

Why is cross‑border cooperation crucial in crypto seizure and AML cases?

By design, crypto assets move seamlessly across borders, while criminal jurisdiction remains national. This asymmetry makes cross‑border cooperation indispensable. Polish authorities regularly rely on mutual legal assistance, European Investigation Orders and EU freezing/confiscation instruments to trace and secure assets located abroad, and respond to similar requests from foreign prosecutors.

For clients with an international footprint – holding accounts on foreign exchanges, using offshore entities or transacting with counterparties worldwide – this means that a Polish investigation can have far‑reaching consequences in multiple jurisdictions. Freezing orders issued in Poland can result in blocked accounts or seized crypto wallets in other EU Member States and vice versa.

Defence strategies must therefore be coordinated internationally. Legal teams should analyse not only Polish criminal law and AML obligations, but also the laws of relevant foreign jurisdictions, ensuring consistent positions and avoiding self‑incrimination risks in parallel proceedings.

When should you seek specialised legal assistance?

Any contact with law enforcement or supervisory authorities concerning crypto assets – whether a request for information, a search, a freezing order or an AML inquiry – should be treated as a serious legal event. Early involvement of experienced defence counsel significantly increases the chances of protecting assets, controlling the flow of information and mitigating exposure to AML criminal liability.

The law firm Kopeć Zaborowski Adwokaci i Radcowie Prawni provides specialised assistance in cases involving seizure and confiscation of crypto assets in Poland, complex white‑collar crime investigations and AML enforcement. The team combines in‑depth knowledge of Polish and EU criminal law with practical experience in high‑value, cross‑border matters and cooperation with forensic and compliance experts.

For international investors, financial institutions and VASPs operating in or through Poland, engaging a firm with hands‑on experience in crypto asset defence strategies can be decisive in preserving value, reputation and business continuity.

Key takeaways on seizure and confiscation of crypto assets in Poland

The Polish framework on seizure and confiscation of crypto assets is rapidly evolving, driven by EU standards, technological innovation and growing prosecutorial experience. Crypto assets are firmly treated as property that can be seized, frozen and confiscated, while AML obligations for market participants are expanding and becoming more sophisticated.

At the same time, significant space remains for effective defence strategies, especially where authorities overreach, fail to respect procedural guarantees or underestimate the legitimate, documented origin of digital assets. Those exposed to the Polish system should not rely on informal market practices or assumptions drawn from other jurisdictions.

A structured, evidence‑based and internationally coordinated approach – integrating legal, technical and compliance aspects – offers the best protection against the risks associated with crypto asset seizure, AML criminal liability and cross‑border enforcement in Poland.

Bibliography and selected sources

• Polish Criminal Code (Kodeks karny).
• Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego).
• Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (implementation of EU AML Directives).
• Directive (EU) 2015/849 (4th AMLD) and Directive (EU) 2018/843 (5th AMLD).
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto‑assets (MiCA).
• Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.
• Public guidance and communications of the Polish General Inspector of Financial Information (GIIF).
• FATF, “Updated Guidance for a Risk‑Based Approach to Virtual Assets and VASPs”, 2021.