Fiscal penal cases in Poland

Fiscal penal cases (sprawy karne skarbowe) are proceedings concerning fiscal offences (przestępstwa skarbowe) and fiscal misdemeanours (wykroczenia skarbowe) governed by the Fiscal Penal Code of 10 September 1999 (Kodeks karny skarbowy, the FPC), which covers acts against tax, customs, foreign exchange and gambling obligations. They differ from ordinary criminal cases in three respects. The preparatory proceedings are as a rule conducted by the National Revenue Administration rather than the prosecution service. Penalties are calculated by reference to the minimum wage, and in the so-called divided types the question whether an act is an offence or a misdemeanour is decided by the amount understated, exposed to understatement or the value of the object of the act. The perpetrator has at his disposal institutions of non-liability to punishment (active remorse, correction of the return) and of consensual termination of the case (voluntary submission to liability), whose common condition is that the understated amount is made good. A fiscal penal case usually runs in parallel with the tax dispute and is coupled with it through limitation: its opening, notified to the taxpayer, suspends the limitation of the tax liability, and in the cases specified in the FPC the limitation of the amount due also ends the punishability of the act.

Key points

• Whether an act is a fiscal offence or a fiscal misdemeanour is decided by the elements of the specific provision. In the types where the legislature uses a statutory threshold, a misdemeanour is an act in which the amount understated or exposed to understatement, or the value of the object of the act, does not exceed five times the minimum wage at the time of the act (Article 53(3) and (6) FPC); for acts committed in 2026 the threshold is PLN 24,030, since the minimum wage is PLN 4,806 (Council of Ministers regulation of 11 September 2025). Misdemeanours are punishable only by a fine fixed in money, as a rule from PLN 480.60 to PLN 96,120 (Article 48(1)), by a penalty notice of up to PLN 24,030 (Article 48(2)) and by a penal order of up to PLN 48,060 (Article 48(3)).
• A fiscal offence carries, unless the Code provides otherwise, a fine of 10 to 720 daily rates, restriction of liberty or imprisonment from 5 days to 5 years (Articles 22(1), 23(1), 26 and 27(1)). The daily rate in 2026 ranges from PLN 160.20 to PLN 64,080 (Article 23(3)). Under extraordinary aggravation the penalty may not exceed 1,080 daily rates, 2 years of restriction of liberty or 10 years of imprisonment (Article 28(2)).
• Preparatory proceedings are conducted by the financial preparatory proceedings authorities: the head of the tax office, the head of the customs and tax office and the Head of the National Revenue Administration (Article 118(1) and (2)), and in the cases indicated in the Code also by the Border Guard, the Police and other bodies. Since 1 October 2026 the head of the customs and tax office is competent in cases concerning the most serious tax offences, among others under Articles 54(1), 55(1), 56(1), 62(2) and (2a), 76(1) and (2), 77(1) and 78(1), regardless of who detected them (Article 133(1)(1) as amended by the Act of 29 May 2026, Journal of Laws item 846). In an inquiry the powers of the prosecutor are exercised by the superior financial authority unless the public prosecutor has taken the inquiry under supervision; after an investigation, and in the other cases indicated in Article 155(2), the indictment is approved and filed by the public prosecutor.
• Punishability of a fiscal offence ceases 5 years after the act, or 10 years for acts punishable by more than 3 years’ imprisonment (Article 44(1)). For acts consisting in understatement or exposure to understatement the period starts at the end of the year in which the payment deadline expired (Article 44(3)), and punishability also ceases when the amount due itself becomes time-barred (Article 44(2)). Opening proceedings against the perpetrator within that period extends punishability by a further 5 or 10 years from the end of the basic period (Article 44(5)). Punishability of a fiscal misdemeanour ceases after one year and, if proceedings against the perpetrator were opened within that period, two years after the end of that period (Article 51(1) and (2)).
• Opening proceedings for a fiscal offence or misdemeanour, of which the taxpayer was notified no later than on expiry of the limitation period, suspends the limitation of the tax liability if the suspicion relates to non-performance of that liability (Articles 70(6)(1) and 70c of the Tax Ordinance Act of 29 August 1997, the Tax Ordinance). In a complaint against the decision the administrative court examines whether the opening was instrumental (Supreme Administrative Court resolution of 24 May 2021, I FPS 1/21), and the notice must reach the representative appointed in the audit or tax proceedings (resolution of 18 March 2019, I FPS 3/18).
• Active remorse (Article 16) and a legally effective correction of the return or book (Article 16a) exclude liability to punishment, each on its own conditions. Voluntary submission to liability (Articles 17 and 18) is different: the court orders, as a fine, the amount paid by the perpetrator, but the judgment granting permission is not entered in the National Criminal Register and does not count towards fiscal recidivism. A penalty for a fiscal misdemeanour, whether by judgment or penalty notice, is not entered in the register; a final conviction for a fiscal offence and a conditional discontinuance of proceedings for a fiscal offence are (Article 1(2)(1) and (2) of the Act of 24 May 2000 on the National Criminal Register).

Fiscal offences and misdemeanours

The Fiscal Penal Code divides acts into fiscal offences and fiscal misdemeanours by reference to the penalty and the amount. A misdemeanour is an act punishable by a fine fixed in money where the amount of the public levy understated or exposed to understatement, or the value of the object of the act, does not exceed the statutory threshold, and any other act which the Code so classifies (Article 53(3) and (6)); the Code also knows cases of lesser gravity (Article 53(8)). Further thresholds concern offences: small value is an amount not exceeding two hundred times the minimum wage (PLN 961,200 in 2026), large value an amount exceeding five hundred times (PLN 2,403,000) and great value an amount exceeding one thousand times (PLN 4,806,000) (Article 53(14) to (16)); they mitigate or aggravate liability, and the basis of calculation is always the minimum wage at the time of the act, not of the proceedings (Articles 2 and 53). The individual types in the special part, from tax fraud under Article 56 and tax evasion under Article 54 to unreliable invoices under Article 62 and refund fraud under Article 76, are described in the entry on tax fraud in Poland and in our articles on invoice fraud, empty invoices, unreliable books and obstructing tax audits.

Liability is not confined to the taxpayer. A person who, under a provision of law, a decision of the competent authority, a contract or de facto performance, manages the economic affairs, in particular the financial affairs, of an individual, a legal person or an organisational unit is liable as the perpetrator (Article 9(3)); in practice this covers board members, finance directors, chief accountants and individuals running accounting practices, where they actually manage the client’s financial affairs. The provision widens the circle of possible perpetrators but does not displace the general conditions of liability: a specific act and the required form of fault must be attributed to the specific person, and a fiscal offence or misdemeanour can be committed negligently only where the Code so provides (Articles 1(3) and 4); a position, a signature or a job description does not replace those findings. Subsidiary liability is a separate institution: for a fine imposed on the perpetrator of a fiscal offence, an entity whose deputy, proxy, manager or employee the perpetrator was is made subsidiarily liable if that entity obtained or could have obtained any financial benefit from the offence (Article 24(1)); the rule applies accordingly to recovery of the equivalent of forfeiture (Article 24(3)), and independently of it the court orders the entity that obtained a benefit to return it (Article 24(2)). A person claiming a right to an object subject to forfeiture may intervene (Article 119). Liability for the company’s tax arrears on other bases is described in the entry on board member liability, and liability for an employee’s acts in our article on employee fraud.

Authorities and course of proceedings

The Code of Criminal Procedure applies accordingly to fiscal penal proceedings (Article 113(1) FPC), with the modifications of the FPC, and with it the presumption of innocence, the right to refuse to give explanations and the absence of any duty to supply evidence against oneself (Articles 5, 74(1) and 175(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The inquiry or investigation is conducted by a financial preparatory proceedings authority. Subject-matter competence is allocated by Article 133(1) FPC: since 1 October 2026 the head of the customs and tax office conducts cases concerning customs, excise, foreign exchange and gambling offences and misdemeanours as well as the basic types of tax offences under Articles 54(1), 55(1), 56(1), 62(2) and (2a), 76(1) and (2), 77(1), 78(1) and 80f regardless of which authority detected them, and cases concerning the privileged types and tax misdemeanours only where it detected them within its own remit; the head of the tax office conducts the remaining cases. An inquiry is supervised by the superior financial authority exercising the prosecutor’s powers, unless the public prosecutor has taken it under supervision (Article 122); an investigation is conducted under the prosecutor’s supervision, and after an investigation, and in the other cases indicated in Article 155(2), the prosecutor approves and files the indictment. Proceedings are opened by a ruling in the matter (in rem), and a person becomes a suspect when a ruling presenting charges is issued or when a charge is put to him without such a ruling in connection with his examination as a suspect (Article 71(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with Article 113(1) FPC). The distinction matters for the limitation of the tax liability, because the suspension under Article 70(6)(1) Tax Ordinance follows the opening in rem, provided the taxpayer was notified and the suspicion relates to non-performance of a specific liability. The practice of opening proceedings without grounds is discussed in the entry on the statute of limitations for tax obligations and in our article on tolling and interruption of the statute of limitations. Evidence flows both ways between the criminal and the tax proceedings; its limits are described in the entries on evidence in Polish tax proceedings and on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence and in our article on wiretap evidence in tax proceedings.

Proceedings may end in several ways. In misdemeanour cases the authority imposes a penalty notice if the perpetrator consents (Articles 136 to 141); at the end of December 2026 provisions on a penalty notice in absentia enter into force, under which consent is replaced by payment of the fine within 14 days of service, and since 1 October 2026 a final penalty notice may be revoked at any time, among other grounds after a judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal or where new facts show that the person did not commit the act (Articles 137, 138 and 140(1b) FPC as amended by the Act of 29 May 2026). The authority may apply to the court for permission for voluntary submission to liability (Articles 142 to 149), file an indictment or, with the suspect’s consent, a motion for conviction without trial (Article 156). The district court decides at trial or, where the rules on penal orders allow it and none of the exclusions in Article 171 applies, by a penal order without a hearing within the limits of Article 172; an objection to the penal order may be filed within 7 days of its service (Article 506(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Fiscal penal proceedings may be suspended where their conduct is substantially impeded by a pending tax audit, customs and fiscal audit, proceedings before the tax or customs authorities or a case before the administrative court (Article 114a); in practice the authorities open proceedings before limitation and suspend them until the tax dispute ends, sometimes for years. An appeal against the district court’s judgment lies to the regional court, and cassation to the Supreme Court only on narrow grounds. Asset freezing and forfeiture are discussed in our articles on prejudgment security over taxpayer assets and on what happens when the state freezes your money, and the wider criminal dimension in our articles on white collar crimes and on criminal charges, when your life is at stake.

Limitation and coupling with the tax case

Punishability of a fiscal offence ceases when 5 years have passed since it was committed, or 10 years if the act is punishable by imprisonment exceeding 3 years (Article 44(1)). For acts consisting in understatement or exposure to understatement the period starts at the end of the year in which the payment deadline expired (Article 44(3)), and punishability also ceases when the amount itself becomes time-barred (Article 44(2)); the rule of Article 44(2) concerns acts of understatement or exposure, not every fiscal offence. If proceedings against the perpetrator are opened within that period, punishability ceases only after a further 5 or 10 years from the end of the basic period (Article 44(5)). Article 44(2) to (4) and (6) to (7) apply accordingly to misdemeanours (Article 51(1)). The Act of 15 May 2026 amending the Tax Ordinance and the FPC, which would have repealed Article 70(6)(1) Tax Ordinance and Article 44(2) FPC and allowed the equivalent of the amount understated to be recovered in the criminal trial after the tax became time-barred, was vetoed by the President on 11 June 2026 and, as at the date of this entry, has not entered into force; both the suspension under Article 70(6)(1) Tax Ordinance and the protection of Article 44(2) FPC therefore remain in force.

The coupling works both ways. Opening proceedings for a fiscal offence or misdemeanour, of which the taxpayer was notified no later than on expiry of the limitation period, suspends that period if the suspicion relates to non-performance of the liability (Articles 70(6)(1) and 70c Tax Ordinance); opening any fiscal penal case whatsoever is not enough. In resolution I FPS 1/21 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the assessment of the conditions for applying those provisions, including the instrumental character of the opening, falls within the court’s review of the legality of the decision, and the authority should show in its reasons that the opening did not serve solely to stop limitation; in resolution I FPS 3/18 it held that the notice under Article 70c must be served on the representative appointed in the audit or tax proceedings, also where the notice is given by an authority other than the one before which the representative acts, failing which no suspensive effect arises.

Non-liability to punishment and consensual termination

The Fiscal Penal Code places the recovery of the amount due above the punishment of the perpetrator, but the institutions serving that aim have different effects. Active remorse (Article 16) consists in notifying the authority of the act, disclosing the material circumstances including accomplices, and paying the amount understated within the time set, where an understatement occurred; it is ineffective once the authority already had clearly documented knowledge of the act or had begun an official action, in particular a search, verification activity or audit, aimed at its discovery, unless that action produced no grounds for opening proceedings for that act (Article 16(5)), and it is unavailable to those who directed the act, organised a group or incited others (Article 16(6)); the conditions are set out in the entry on active remorse. A separate ground is a legally effective correction of the return or book concerning the obligation whose improper performance constitutes the act (Article 16a(1)): it excludes liability to punishment without a separate notification, requires immediate payment of any amount understated (Article 16a(2)) and does not apply where preparatory proceedings for that act were opened before the correction or the act was disclosed in pending preparatory proceedings (Article 16a(3)). Voluntary submission to liability (Articles 17 and 18) is available after proceedings are opened if guilt and the circumstances of the act are not in doubt, the amount due has been paid in full, a sum at least equal to the lowest fine and lump-sum costs have been paid, and the perpetrator has consented to forfeiture; it is inadmissible for offences punishable by restriction of liberty or imprisonment, for acts committed in the circumstances of Article 37(1) or 38(2), and where an intervention has been lodged and not withdrawn before the indictment is filed (Article 17(2)). It is not an avoidance of punishment: the court orders, as a fine, the amount paid by the perpetrator (Article 18(1)), but the judgment granting permission is not entered in the National Criminal Register and does not count towards fiscal recidivism (Article 18(2) and (3)). Conviction without trial on the authority’s motion (Article 156) is a conviction entered in the register, and a conditional discontinuance of proceedings for a fiscal offence, although not a conviction, is recorded; where an understatement occurred the court orders payment of the amount due (Article 41(2)).

What to check when fiscal penal proceedings are opened

• The ruling on opening: date, classification, link to a specific liability; whether the notice under Article 70c Tax Ordinance was served on the taxpayer or the representative before the limitation period expired.
• Whether the authority performs any acts or suspended the proceedings immediately after opening; inactivity supports the argument of instrumentality in the tax dispute.
• The amount of the alleged understatement by reference to the minimum wage of the year of the act: misdemeanour or offence, small, large or great value, risk of extraordinary aggravation; for acts of earlier years the intertemporal rules of Article 2 FPC.
• Limitation of punishability (Articles 44 and 51 FPC) and of the liability (Article 70 Tax Ordinance), including the effect of proceedings against the person on the extension.
• Active remorse and correction have different cut-off points: active remorse fails once the authority has documented knowledge or begins an action aimed at discovery, correction once preparatory proceedings for that act are opened; after opening, assessment of the conditions and cost of voluntary submission compared with defence at trial.
• The circle of persons: who actually managed the economic affairs (Article 9(3)) and whether an act and fault can be attributed to him, whether the company faces subsidiary liability (Article 24), whether Criminal Code charges (Articles 271a, 286, 299) and asset freezing are a risk; see our articles on intellectual falsification of documents, on money laundering under Article 299 of the Criminal Code and on fraud.
• Coordination with the tax dispute: establish why the decision was set aside and whether the ruling undermines the existence or amount of the liability or only the correctness of the proceedings; the criminal court decides questions of fact and law independently (Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), so do not assume that the fiscal penal case ends automatically; a motion for suspension under Article 114a FPC while the tax case is pending.

Counterparts in other jurisdictions

German fiscal criminal law sits within the Abgabenordnung (section 369 and following AO), and preparatory proceedings are conducted by a specialised unit of the tax administration (Bußgeld- und Strafsachenstelle) with its own right to apply for a penal order. Self-disclosure (section 371 AO) requires disclosure of all unprosecuted acts concerning the type of tax in question, at least for the last 10 calendar years, and payment of the tax with interest; for larger amounts immunity depends on an additional surcharge (section 398a AO). German law also knows a coupling of limitation periods, in a different form: the assessment period does not end before the punishability of the act becomes time-barred (section 171(7) AO). In the United States criminal cases are handled by IRS Criminal Investigation with the Department of Justice, and are separated from civil penalties by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Polish particularity is a separate code with its own general part, penalties calculated by reference to the minimum wage, and the fact that the suspension of tax limitation follows the mere opening of proceedings in rem, without a charge being put to anyone.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a fiscal offence and a fiscal misdemeanour?

The elements of the specific provision decide. In the types where the legislature uses a statutory threshold, an act in which the understatement, exposure or value of the object does not exceed five times the minimum wage at the time of the act (PLN 24,030 for acts of 2026) is a misdemeanour punishable by a fine fixed in money; above the threshold the act is an offence punishable by a fine in daily rates, restriction of liberty or imprisonment (Articles 53(3) and (6) and 48 FPC). The threshold is not a universal criterion for all fiscal acts.

How high is the fine for a fiscal offence in 2026?

Unless the Code provides otherwise, from 10 to 720 daily rates, with a daily rate from PLN 160.20 to PLN 64,080 (Article 23); the product of the maximum values is PLN 46,137,600, and under extraordinary aggravation the upper limit reaches 1,080 daily rates (Article 28(2)). The court sets the rate according to the perpetrator’s income and personal, family and financial circumstances.

Who conducts fiscal penal proceedings in Poland?

The financial preparatory proceedings authorities: the head of the tax office, the head of the customs and tax office and the Head of the National Revenue Administration (Article 118(1) FPC). Since 1 October 2026 the basic types of tax offences fall within the competence of the head of the customs and tax office (Article 133(1)(1)). An inquiry is supervised by the superior financial authority or by the prosecutor who has taken it under supervision; an investigation is supervised by the prosecutor. The district court decides.

Does opening a fiscal penal case stop the limitation of the tax?

Yes, if the taxpayer or his representative was notified of the opening no later than on expiry of the limitation period and the suspicion relates to non-performance of that liability (Articles 70(6)(1) and 70c Tax Ordinance). The administrative court examines whether the opening was instrumental (resolution I FPS 1/21). The act that was to abolish this mechanism was vetoed on 11 June 2026.

How can punishment be avoided in a fiscal penal case?

Active remorse (Article 16) and a legally effective correction of the return or book (Article 16a) exclude liability to punishment if their separate conditions are met, including payment of the amount understated; active remorse fails once the authority has documented knowledge or begins an action aimed at discovery, correction once preparatory proceedings for that act are opened. Voluntary submission to liability (Article 17) involves a fine, but the judgment granting permission is not entered in the National Criminal Register.

Are the accountant or the board members liable for the company’s fiscal offence?

They may be liable under Article 9(3) FPC if they managed the company’s economic affairs, in particular its finances, and a specific act and the required form of fault can be attributed to them; a position or a signature alone is not decisive. The company may be made subsidiarily liable for the fine if it obtained or could have obtained a benefit from the offence (Article 24).

Related entries

• Tax fraud in Poland
• Active remorse
• Statute of limitations for tax obligations
• Empty invoices
• Fictitious transactions
• Customs and fiscal audit
• Board member liability
• Evidence in Polish tax proceedings

Skarbiec Law Firm conducts the defence in fiscal penal and white collar criminal cases from the ruling on opening to the appeal, coordinating it with the tax dispute, including customs and fiscal audits and tax audits, and in matters governed by customs and foreign exchange law.

Legal status as of 1 November 2026.

Robert Nogacki

Robert Nogacki is a Polish attorney at law (radca prawny), the founder and managing partner of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec (Skarbiec Law Firm), which has operated continuously since 2006.

The law is equal for everyone, but the parties rarely are: on one side stands an organization with time, money, and lawyers, on the other a person with one business, one nest egg, and one life.

Clients rarely come to him with a legal problem. They come with a problem that also has a legal side: an audit that began with a single invoice, money entrusted to someone who has disappeared, a company that has to be passed on before it is too late. Most such matters are decided long before the first letter is written, in decisions made without asking and in deadlines nobody remembered. So he begins by asking how the client got here, not what the client should have done.

He advises entrepreneurs and families from more than a dozen countries, including those whose accounts the tax office has just seized and who do not know what to do tomorrow morning. He defends them in tax audits, customs and fiscal inspections, disputes with the tax authorities, and criminal tax proceedings. He represents victims of investment fraud and Ponzi schemes. He helps families set up family foundations and plan succession, so that a life’s work outlasts a single generation.

Not every case can be won. Every case can be run so that the client knows where they stand. Since 2006 he has represented the victims in the WGI case (Warszawska Grupa Inwestycyjna, the Warsaw Investment Group), one of the longest criminal cases in the history of the Polish financial market, because some things must not be left half finished, even when they take two decades. In the case of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange Zonda (Zondacrypto, operated by BB Trade Estonia OÜ), he represents several hundred victims in the criminal investigation conducted by Poland’s National Prosecutor’s Office and in the Estonian bankruptcy proceedings.

Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec is listed in the rankings of Poland’s largest tax advisory firms published by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna and Rzeczpospolita, and it is a four-time recipient (2015 to 2018) of the European Medal awarded by the Business Centre Club and the European Economic and Social Committee. Robert Nogacki publishes regularly, in the press and on the firm’s website, for people who have a problem rather than a law degree, because a legal opinion the client cannot understand protects only the lawyer.

He believes that the best legal advice is the kind that means the client never has to appear in court.