Unreliable Books – The Lies That Ledgers Tell
Every business maintains records, and every record—if one looks closely enough—contains imperfections. The question that haunts Polish entrepreneurs is when such imperfections cross from administrative nuisance into criminal territory. Article 61 of the Fiscal Penal Code draws a line, but it is not always where one might expect.
The statute penalizes two distinct forms of deficient bookkeeping: unreliability and defectiveness. The distinction sounds technical; its consequences are anything but.
Two Species of Error
An unreliable ledger is a dishonest one—its entries do not correspond to reality. Revenue understated, expenses inflated, transactions omitted, fictitious operations recorded. The books present a false picture of the enterprise’s affairs. For this, Polish law provides a fine of up to 240 daily rates—at current levels, potentially exceeding twelve million złoty.
A defective ledger is merely improper—maintained in a manner that violates technical requirements, though its contents may be entirely truthful. Wrong format, missing elements, incorrect procedures. The form is flawed even if the substance is accurate. This is always a misdemeanor, regardless of scale.
The distinction matters enormously. Unreliability is an accusation of falsification; defectiveness, merely of sloppiness. One attacks integrity; the other, competence.
The Reach of Responsibility
Who answers for a company’s books? The obvious candidate is the entrepreneur—the person obligated by law to maintain proper records. But responsibility extends further than many business owners realize.
When bookkeeping is outsourced—to an accounting firm, an independent bookkeeper, a back-office service provider—criminal liability travels with the function. The person who actually maintains the records can be prosecuted for their unreliability, regardless of whether they hold any formal certification or professional license.
This cuts both ways. The entrepreneur who delegates bookkeeping does transfer exposure to the delegate. But the transfer is effective only if genuine—if the entrepreneur continues to dictate entries, supplies documents known to be false, or otherwise directs the falsification, responsibility remains shared.
One category of person escapes liability entirely: someone who maintains books they have no obligation to keep. A volunteer who, for whatever eccentric reason, decides to create accounting records for an enterprise with which they have no connection commits no crime by doing so unreliably. The statute requires a nexus between the perpetrator and the duty to maintain accurate records.
The Centrality of Intent
Here lies the provision’s most significant practical feature: unreliable bookkeeping is a crime of intent. The perpetrator must at least accept the possibility that entries do not correspond to reality. Mere negligence—even gross negligence—does not suffice.
The Supreme Court has addressed this directly, holding that the quantity of errors proves nothing about the quality of intent. A single deliberately false entry constitutes a crime; a thousand careless mistakes may not. An overworked bookkeeper who makes frequent errors through inattention has not committed a criminal act, however deficient her performance. A bookkeeper who knowingly records one fictitious transaction has.
This principle has profound implications for enforcement. Tax authorities sometimes reason backward from the scale of discrepancies—surely this many errors cannot be accidental. Courts have rejected this logic. Each case requires individual assessment of what the perpetrator knew and intended, not statistical inference from outcomes.
The Refuge of Interpretive Ambiguity
Polish tax law is notoriously complex, internally contradictory, and subject to shifting interpretation. The same provision may be construed differently by different authorities; positions that prevailed for years can be reversed by a single court decision.
This complexity provides a genuine defense. When bookkeeping entries reflect a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous law—an interpretation that later proves incorrect—criminal liability should not attach. The perpetrator who applies one plausible reading of a murky statute has not acted with the intent to falsify, even if the tax authorities ultimately prefer a different reading.
Commentators and courts alike have urged caution in prosecuting cases rooted in interpretive disagreement. Where the error flows from legal ambiguity rather than factual misrepresentation, the elements of criminal unreliability are not satisfied.
The practical advice is obvious: document the basis for contestable positions. A contemporaneous memorandum explaining why a particular tax treatment was adopted—citing regulations, rulings, professional opinions, relevant case law—becomes evidence that the entry reflected good-faith interpretation, not intentional falsification.
The Problem of Tainted Source Documents
A bookkeeper records what the underlying documents show. When those documents are themselves false—invoices for fictitious transactions, receipts for purchases never made—the resulting ledger entries will necessarily be unreliable. But whose crime is it?
If the bookkeeper could not reasonably have detected the falsity of the source documents, no criminal intent can be established. Bookkeepers are not investigators; they are not required to verify that every invoice reflects a genuine transaction. Their obligation is to record accurately what the documents purport to show.
The boundary, however, is not infinitely accommodating. Invoices that are facially absurd—describing services that make no commercial sense, from entities that obviously could not provide them, in amounts grossly disproportionate to any legitimate business purpose—put the bookkeeper on notice. Claiming ignorance of what was plainly apparent will not persuade a court.
The Minor Case
Unreliable bookkeeping can be classified as a “minor case,” reducing it to a misdemeanor with lighter penalties. The classification depends on the totality of circumstances: the value of concealed transactions, the perpetrator’s motives, the impact on tax obligations.
Defective bookkeeping—the purely formal violation—is always a misdemeanor, regardless of scale. The legislature concluded that technical non-compliance, without falsification of substance, does not warrant felony treatment.
Living with the Risk
The risk of criminal liability for bookkeeping failures is real and frequently underestimated. The prudent entrepreneur takes several precautions.
First, clarity about responsibility. If bookkeeping is outsourced, the allocation of duties should be documented precisely. Ambiguity about who does what creates exposure for everyone.
Second, documentation of interpretive choices. When tax treatment is uncertain, the reasoning behind the position taken should be preserved contemporaneously, not reconstructed after an audit.
Third, prompt correction of discovered errors. Polish law provides a mechanism—voluntary disclosure before detection—that can eliminate criminal liability for mistakes that are acknowledged and remedied before authorities discover them.
Fourth, recognition that intent is the central issue. The sheer volume of errors does not establish criminality; the question is always whether falsification was knowing. This is both a vulnerability—intent can sometimes be inferred from circumstances—and a protection, since it excludes liability for honest mistakes however numerous.
Skarbiec Law Firm represents entrepreneurs and accounting professionals in fiscal criminal proceedings, providing defense against allegations of bookkeeping violations.
Current as of December 2025
Founder and Managing Partner of Skarbiec Law Firm, recognized by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna as one of the best tax advisory firms in Poland (2023, 2024). Legal advisor with 19 years of experience, serving Forbes-listed entrepreneurs and innovative start-ups. One of the most frequently quoted experts on commercial and tax law in the Polish media, regularly publishing in Rzeczpospolita, Gazeta Wyborcza, and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Author of the publication “AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto. Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator” and co-author of the award-winning book “Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy” (Security of a Modern Company). LinkedIn profile: 18 500 followers, 4 million views per year. Awards: 4-time winner of the European Medal, Golden Statuette of the Polish Business Leader, title of “International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.” He specializes in strategic legal consulting, tax planning, and crisis management for business.
