MiCA CASP Licence in Poland: The End of the Transitional Period
Introduction: A Legislative Footnote That Closes an Industry
On 22 May 2026, the Polish Senate adopted, without amendment, the Act on the Crypto-Asset Market (Sejm print 2363). The development was registered in the press as a routine legislative item and in industry newsletters as “one step further, the road remains long.” Yet, for the more than one thousand Polish entities entered in the register of virtual currency activity, this date marked the beginning of a window of approximately forty days within which to design the controlled cessation of their current operations. The MiCA CASP licence in Poland has simultaneously become a necessary condition for continued activity and, for reasons elaborated below, an unattainable temporal horizon. The moment for cautionary commentary has passed; what remains is cold calculation.
The article previously published on this site in October 2025 addressed the first iteration of the statute, which the President vetoed in December 2025. That iteration contained a mechanism whereby entities submitting a complete CASP authorisation application to the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) within three months of the statute’s entry into force could benefit from an extended, nine-month transitional period. The current statute, in contradistinction to its two predecessors, does not contain this provision. The submission of an application does not extend the protective regime by a single day. This is a deliberate legislative choice, taken following the project’s repeated passage through the Sejm and Senate, and—within the present configuration of Union law—irreversible.
A Brief Legislative History: Three Drafts, Two Vetoes, One Deadline
The first draft of the Act on the Crypto-Asset Market, dated 10 January 2025, reached the Sejm in autumn 2025 and was adopted on 26 September 2025. President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the bill on 1 December 2025, citing concerns regarding the breadth of competences conferred upon the General Inspector of Financial Information and the mechanism for blocking internet domains. The Sejm did not override the veto.
The second iteration was processed at the turn of 2025–2026. The Sejm adopted a modified version on 17–18 December 2025; the President vetoed it again on 12 February 2026. The override attempt undertaken by the Sejm on 17 April 2026 failed: 243 votes were obtained against the required three-fifths majority of 263. The cumulative experience of two prior attempts furnished the government with operational material: it had become familiar with the Presidential Chancellery’s list of objections and recognised that, absent their accommodation, a third veto would arrest the implementing regime indefinitely.
The third draft was submitted to the Sejm on 7 May 2026. It incorporates a number of amendments proposed by the Presidential Chancellery during the prior cycle. The Public Finance Committee considered the draft on 14 May 2026; the Sejm adopted the statute on 15 May 2026; the Senate adopted it without amendment on 22 May 2026. The instrument now awaits Presidential signature. A third veto, although assessed as improbable in the current political configuration (the government having accommodated nearly all Presidential amendments, and the Union deadline of 1 July generating pressure on all sides), remains formally available until the day of signature.
The statute enters into force fourteen days following its publication in the Journal of Laws (Article 169), save for Article 70 concerning the obligations of telecommunications undertakings, for which a four-month vacatio legis has been provided. Assuming prompt signature and publication at the turn of May and June, the statute will enter into force approximately between 8 and 20 June 2026. It bears noting that the President has twenty-one days to sign (Article 122 of the Constitution); maximal use of this period would correspondingly compress the window during which the KNF is competent to receive CASP authorisation applications before the expiry of the transitional regime.
A point of strategic significance for every Polish virtual asset service provider must be made plain. Irrespective of the domestic scenario—including the hypothetical third veto and the consequent absence of an implementing statute by 1 July 2026—the Union boundary derived from Article 143(3) of the MiCA Regulation is invariant. After 1 July 2026, the provision of crypto-asset services within the EU without a CASP licence constitutes a breach of Union law “irrespective whether the MiCA has been implemented in a Member State or not”—so states the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) explicitly in its statement of 17 April 2026 (footnote 5 of document ESMA75-113276571-1679). From the perspective of a Polish VASP, a third veto would not constitute relief; it would at most introduce an additional layer of jurisdictional uncertainty as to the body charged with enforcement.
From the standpoint of an entity entered in the Polish virtual currency register, the difference between the three successive iterations of the statute reduces to a single point: in the third iteration, the safety valve—the mechanism extending the transitional period for applicants submitting complete applications—has been removed.
Article 162 of the Polish Crypto-Asset Market Act: A Hard Deadline for the CASP Licence
The transitional regime applicable to entities in the virtual currency register is set forth in Article 162(1):
“During the period from the entry into force of the Act until the date of obtaining the authorisation referred to in Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2023/1114, or the refusal of such authorisation, an entity entered, as of the date of entry into force of the Act, in the register of virtual currency activity may pursue economic activity (…) however, no longer than until 1 July 2026 […].”
The phrase “no longer than” constitutes a hard temporal boundary for the CASP licence in Poland, unconditioned by applicant conduct. The statute does not contemplate an extension of the protective regime for entities filing complete CASP authorisation applications with the KNF before 1 July 2026; nor does it provide for an extension in respect of applicants whose applications are confirmed as complete within that window.
The architecture of accompanying provisions confirms this reading. Article 163(3) directs the register authority to remove the entity from the register “without issuing a decision and without the obligation to notify such entity of the deletion” promptly upon expiry of the deadline set out in Article 162(1). The virtual currency register itself is dissolved on 2 July 2026 (Article 166(1)). The construction is internally coherent: at midnight on 1 July, the transitional regime ceases; on the morning of 2 July, the register in which former VASPs might have appeared no longer exists.
The deliberate excision of the pendency mechanism is dispositive for purposes of interpretation. The legislature had this mechanism within its field of vision, was familiar with its operation, included it in the first iteration of the statute, and, in the third legislative attempt, deliberately abandoned it. The argument a contrario forecloses any reading according to which the mere submission of a CASP authorisation application extends the protective regime.
The Union Boundary: Why the Polish Legislature Cannot Extend the MiCA Transitional Period
The hard limit of 1 July 2026 is not exclusively a product of Polish legislative choice. It derives from Article 143(3) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA), which provides that entities lawfully providing crypto-asset services prior to 30 December 2024 may continue such activity “until 1 July 2026 or until they are granted or refused an authorisation, whichever is sooner.” Member States may shorten this period (second sentence of the provision) but may not extend it. This conclusion follows from the construction of the Regulation as an instrument of maximum harmonisation and from the absence of any clause empowering Member States to prolong the regime beyond 1 July 2026. The field for domestic legislative creativity is closed; even were the Polish legislature minded to enact a targeted amendment, it could not transgress the Union boundary.
The ESMA statement of 17 April 2026 (ESMA75-113276571-1679, Statement on the End of Transitional Periods under MiCA) clarifies the consequences. The document states expressly: “The MiCA transitional period will officially expire across the EU on 1 July 2026. After this date, any entity providing crypto-asset services to EU clients without a MiCA licence will be in breach of EU law and must cease offering such services,” and, in footnote 5, that “This applies irrespective whether the MiCA has been implemented in a Member State or not.” The statement therefore carries erga omnes effect and applies equally in those Member States which have not, by the relevant date, adopted implementing legislation.
ESMA further recalls (footnote 4) that two categories of entities were not entitled to invoke the transitional regime even prior to 1 July 2026: those which did not provide crypto-asset services in accordance with applicable national law before 30 December 2024, and those operating in Member States where the transitional period had previously concluded. For certain Polish VASPs entered in the register after December 2024, this entails that they have, in fact, been operating outside the protective regime for some time, regardless of their own understanding of their formal position.
National competent authorities have been directed by ESMA to: (i) verify the adequacy of wind-down plans maintained by unauthorised CASPs; (ii) take action against the unauthorised provision of crypto-asset services after 1 July; and (iii) scrutinise client migration strategies, ensuring that clients are transferred from unauthorised to authorised providers in an orderly manner. Rumours of a “legislative repair” through further amendment, circulating in industry circles following the recent Senate session, in all likelihood relate to the vetoed drafts. No proposal to modify the date of 1 July 2026 currently sits on the legislative agenda, nor—in the present configuration of Union law—could it.
The Arithmetic of KNF Authorisation: How Long the CASP Licence in Poland Actually Takes
The deadline of 1 July 2026 is unattainable not solely by reason of legal construction, but also by reason of temporal arithmetic. The CASP authorisation procedure under Article 63 of MiCA has its own, considerable, internal periods.
The competent authority acknowledges receipt of the application within five working days (Article 63(1)). Within twenty-five working days of receipt, the authority assesses completeness (Article 63(2)); should deficiencies be identified, it sets a period for remediation. Only once the application is deemed complete does the forty-working-day period for substantive assessment and decision commence (Article 63(9), first sentence). The authority has a further five working days to notify the applicant of its decision (Article 63(9), second sentence). During the substantive phase, no later than the twentieth working day, the authority may request additional information; this suspends the procedure for a period of up to twenty working days (Article 63(12)). Subsequent requests for clarification do not suspend the running of time, but in practice prolong finalisation by the time required for correspondence.
The model scenario, in which the application is complete ab initio and the authority makes no substantive-phase request, yields cumulatively seventy-five working days, calculated from submission of the application to receipt of notification (5 + 25 + 40 + 5), or approximately 3.7 calendar months. A scenario realistic for the Polish wave of applications, with one substantive-phase request, yields ninety-five working days, or approximately 4.4 months. A baseline scenario, involving completeness-phase remediation and one substantive-phase request, yields approximately 110 working days, or 5.3 months.
Moreover, the KNF will assume the role of competent authority within the meaning of Article 3(1)(35) of MiCA only upon the statute’s entry into force. The KNF has indicated in communications of 2024 and 2025 that the initiation of authorisation proceedings will be possible only following statutory designation. The running of periods under Article 63 of MiCA will therefore commence at the earliest in the second half of June 2026, several days before the expiry of the transitional regime. A KNF decision in respect of an application submitted at the first possible moment will accordingly issue between October and November 2026 in the model scenario, and between November 2026 and January 2027 in the realistic scenario.
The conclusion follows arithmetically: no entity from the Polish VASP register will obtain a CASP licence in Poland before 1 July 2026, regardless of the date of submission or the degree of preparedness of the application. This applies to the industry in its entirety, not to particular firms.
The Criminal Sanction under Article 121: PLN 20 Million in Fines and 8 Years of Imprisonment
The consequence of providing crypto-asset services after 1 July 2026 without a CASP licence is the criminal sanction set forth in Article 121(1) of the statute: a fine of up to PLN 20,000,000, or imprisonment of up to eight years, or both. The sanction extends to natural persons acting on behalf of, or in the interest of, a legal person (Article 121(2)). One observation is warranted concerning the contrast with earlier industry commentary: the figures of PLN 5 million and five years’ imprisonment, which appeared in media coverage during the second half of 2025, related to earlier drafts of the statute. In the third legislative iteration, the sanctions were materially increased, and now apply in the form adopted by the Senate on 22 May 2026.
The point is consequential, as one may hear within the industry the argument that “we should proceed cautiously after 1 July, until the KNF acts against us.” Under the present regime, a “wait-and-see” strategy is unavailable as a matter of substance. What remains is the route to criminal charges, property freezes, account blocks, and management liability, together with the risk of disqualification from corporate office.
Fit and Proper Assessment as a Self-Disqualification Mechanism
The criminal sanction does not exhaust the catalogue of consequences. A second, less obvious dimension bears directly upon the prospect of obtaining a CASP licence at a later juncture.
The authorisation procedure under Article 63 of MiCA, elaborated by the joint guidelines of the European Banking Authority and ESMA of 30 June 2024 (EBA/GL/2024/13), rests in substantial part upon the reputational assessment of members of the management body and holders of qualifying shareholdings. The fit and proper assessment, as in the banking and investment firm sectors, is prospective in character. The authority enquires whether the relevant individuals furnish a reasonable basis for confidence over the long regulatory horizon; whether the management body presents a threat to the sound and prudent management of the CASP (Article 63(10)(a) MiCA); whether members of the management body meet the criteria of good repute (point (b) read together with Article 68(1)); and whether qualifying shareholders are sufficiently reputable (point (c) read together with Article 68(2)).
An applicant continuing to operate without authorisation after 1 July 2026 effectively furnishes the KNF with the evidentiary basis for refusal. The very institution of criminal proceedings under Article 121 of the statute—indeed, the bare factual circumstance of operating in defiance of an unambiguous statutory prohibition—suffices to undermine good repute under the EBA/ESMA guidelines, which expressly enumerate “administrative or criminal proceedings, including pending proceedings” within the catalogue of assessment factors. Moreover, Article 63(10)(d) of MiCA permits refusal where there exist objective and demonstrable grounds for believing that the applicant will not satisfy the requirements of Title V in the future. It is difficult to conceive of a cleaner basis for refusal than documented violation of a foundational statutory requirement three months prior to submission.
Experience in the financial sector suggests that supervisory authorities prefer to refuse on evaluative grounds rather than on harder evidentiary bases. Reputational assessment clauses are more defensible vis-à-vis administrative court review, which confines itself to formal scrutiny of decisions and does not enter the merits of supervisory assessment. In the early phase of CASP proceedings, the KNF will have an institutional interest in demonstrating to the market a small number of refusals as instruments of supervisory signalling. Applicants who continued operations after 1 July are the natural candidates for that role.
The mechanism thus closes upon itself: continued activity after 1 July 2026 increases criminal exposure while simultaneously eroding the prospects of obtaining the authorisation for which that continuation was meant to serve as a bridge.
Four Strategic Pathways: CASP Application, Passport, Merger, Controlled Wind-Down
In this configuration, the strategic question is not “how to avoid an interruption” but rather “how to traverse the interruption with the firm and the prospect of market return intact.” Four pathways to a CASP licence or its functional alternatives present themselves, in order of practical accessibility:
Pathway A: a CASP authorisation application in Poland with full documentary readiness, accompanied by a parallel wind-down protocol.
This is the default scenario for entities genuinely intending to return to the Polish market. Full completeness on the day of the statute’s entry into force, or within the first forty-eight hours thereafter, minimises completeness-phase requests. The documentation set encompasses the programme of operations and business model; description of governance and internal control mechanisms; AML and KYC policies aligned with Directive 2015/849; business continuity plans; ICT documentation oriented to the DORA Regulation; procedures for the segregation of client funds and crypto-assets; fit and proper documentation for members of the management body; ownership structure diagrams with UBO documentation and qualifying holdings from 10 per cent; and demonstration of compliance with the capital requirement under Article 67 and Annex IV of MiCA (ranging from EUR 50,000 to EUR 150,000 depending on the service class; typically EUR 125,000 for an exchange/ATM profile). The parallel wind-down protocol—encompassing timely client communication, procedures for the return of cash and the release of crypto-assets from custodial wallets, management of obligations to banks and counterparties, and an operational plan separating discontinued services from any services continued without a CASP requirement—simultaneously functions as a defence against criminal liability and as evidence of compliance culture in the licensing proceeding.
Pathway B: a passport from another EU jurisdiction (Article 65 MiCA) as an alternative to the CASP licence in Poland.
A CASP authorisation granted in another Member State permits the provision of services across the Union under the freedoms to provide services or to establish. The variant is realistic only for entities with genuine operational substance in the relevant jurisdiction; the requirement of central administration in the authorising state under Article 59(2) of MiCA excludes the letterbox company. The ESMA statement of 17 April 2026 additionally forecloses arrangements whereby an entity licensed in another Member State outsources functions such as crypto-asset custody to a non-EU or non-CASP-authorised entity. In practice, this closes the industry-familiar pattern of “licensed entity in Jurisdiction A plus operational entity in Poland without a licence.” The Bank of Lithuania processes applications in a period marginally shorter than that of the KNF (approximately six months for model applicants), but all EU national authorities are operating under the same deadline with similarly burdened queues. Estonia, following the 2022–2023 supervisory reform, is no longer a “fast” option; it requires physical premises, a local AML officer, capital of EUR 250,000, and realistically six to nine months of proceedings. A passport does not eliminate the interruption following 1 July; it can only shorten it, and only in specific group configurations.
Pathway C: merger, share sale, or partnership with a licensed entity.
A combination with an entity already holding a CASP authorisation in another Member State, or a discounting of value in favour of an investor better positioned in the authorisation procedure. The course requires regulatory due diligence, and a change in qualifying holdings may be subject to the KNF’s prudential assessment procedure, which carries its own period of sixty working days (Article 84 MiCA and corresponding domestic procedures). It bears noting that the ESMA statement of 17 April 2026 also forecloses arrangements whereby an authorised entity provides services to EU clients through an unauthorised third-country entity, including in business-to-business contexts. The realistic negotiating horizon ranges from three to six months. For entities whose economics cannot withstand a window of several months without revenue, this is often the sole option for preserving operational value.
Pathway D: controlled wind-down.
The least attractive commercially, yet in certain configurations the only rational response. The plan encompasses liquidation of the client portfolio, return of funds, divestment, personnel management, and the tax dimension. The option is largely ignored within the industry, although for entities whose business model cannot bear the cost of a CASP application and a suspension period, it is less burdensome than a passage through licensing proceedings with marginal prospects of success.
Conclusion: A Question for the Boards of Polish VASPs
In the period from September 2025 through April 2026, the Polish crypto-asset industry enjoyed the comfort of discussing regulation in a speculative register, since two successive statutes had attracted vetoes and alternative political scenarios remained open. That comfort ended on 22 May 2026, when the Senate adopted the third iteration without amendment. From that moment, the boards of Polish VASPs possess two categories of information: certainty as to the date on which the present regime concludes (1 July 2026, irrespective of the further fate of the domestic implementing statute) and a spectrum of strategies for traversing that date at varying cost and risk. Every strategy has its beneficiaries and its casualties. The strategy of waiting has, today, only casualties.
The question every board of a Polish crypto-asset firm should put to itself in the coming week is not “shall we manage to file the CASP application in time.” It is rather: “within which of the four scenarios do we wish to find ourselves after 1 July, and what do we begin doing tomorrow to render that scenario feasible.” The earlier the answer emerges, the narrower the scope of damage it does not encompass.
The MiCA CASP Licence in Poland: Frequently Asked Questions
When does the deadline for the MiCA CASP licence in Poland expire?
The deadline is firm and derives from two sources. Article 162(1) of the Crypto-Asset Market Act (Sejm print 2363) provides that entities entered in the register of virtual currency activity may continue operations under prior rules “no longer than until 1 July 2026.” The boundary also follows from Article 143(3) of the MiCA Regulation and carries Union-wide effect, independent of domestic implementation. The virtual currency register itself is dissolved on 2 July 2026 (Article 166(1)).
What if I file a CASP authorisation application before 1 July 2026 but the KNF has not issued a decision by that date?
The transitional regime lapses on 1 July 2026 regardless of the procedural status of any application. The current statute, in contrast to the two preceding drafts, contains no mechanism extending the protective regime for applicants who have submitted complete applications. Filing an application does not extend the protective regime by a single day. Article 163(3) directs the registry authority to remove the entity from the register “without issuing a decision and without the obligation to notify such entity of the deletion” promptly upon the expiry of the period set out in Article 162(1). This represents a deliberate legislative choice taken in the third iteration.
Does my firm require a CASP licence?
A CASP licence is required for any entity providing crypto-asset services to clients in the European Union. The requirement encompasses crypto-asset exchanges, custody services, trading platforms, portfolio management, advisory services, transfer services, and placement of crypto-assets. It applies to entities currently operating under VASP registration as much as to new market entrants. Credit institutions, investment firms, and electronic money institutions holding existing EU authorisations may benefit from the simplified regimes provided in Article 60 of MiCA, but must still notify the KNF.
Which crypto-asset services require a CASP licence?
The catalogue is set out in Article 3(1)(16) of the MiCA Regulation. It comprises: the custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients; operation of a crypto-asset trading platform; exchange of crypto-assets for funds or for other crypto-assets; execution of orders; placement; reception and transmission of orders; provision of advice; portfolio management; and transfer services. Each, when provided on a professional basis, requires authorisation.
What are the capital requirements for a CASP licence?
Annex IV to the MiCA Regulation establishes three minimum capital thresholds, dependent on the service profile: EUR 50,000 for reception and transmission of orders, advice, portfolio management, and transfers; EUR 125,000 for custody, exchange, execution of orders, placement without firm commitment, and reception and transmission of orders involving custody; and EUR 150,000 for the operation of trading platforms. These figures constitute a minimum; the actual capital requirement may be higher in proportion to the scale of operations and the KNF’s assessment. The requirement may be satisfied through own funds, an insurance guarantee, a bank guarantee, or a combination of the foregoing (Article 67 MiCA).
How long does the KNF CASP authorisation procedure take?
Article 63 of the MiCA Regulation provides for a multi-phase procedure. The competent authority has five working days to acknowledge receipt; twenty-five working days to assess completeness; forty working days for substantive assessment, running from the date the application is deemed complete; and a further five working days to notify the applicant. During the substantive phase, the KNF may issue one request for additional information, suspending the procedure for up to twenty working days. The model scenario yields seventy-five working days (approximately 3.7 months); the realistic scenario ninety-five working days (approximately 4.4 months); and the baseline scenario, with completeness-phase remediation, approximately 110 working days (5.3 months). The preparatory stage prior to filing typically requires between two and four months.
What documentation is required for a CASP application?
The scope is set out in Article 62(2) of the MiCA Regulation and the corresponding regulatory technical standards. It encompasses: corporate documentation (articles of association, KRS extracts, ownership structure with UBO documentation and qualifying holdings from 10 per cent); programme of operations and business model; description of governance and internal control mechanisms; fit and proper documentation for members of the management body; AML and KYC procedures aligned with Directive 2015/849; Travel Rule documentation; business continuity plans; ICT documentation oriented to the DORA Regulation; procedures for the segregation of client funds and crypto-assets; conflict of interest policies; complaint handling procedures; and demonstration of compliance with the capital requirement under Article 67 and Annex IV. The documentation must form a coherent whole; inconsistencies between documents are a typical cause of completeness-phase requests.
What is the sanction for providing crypto-asset services without a CASP licence after 1 July 2026?
Article 121(1) of the Crypto-Asset Market Act provides for a fine of up to PLN 20,000,000, or imprisonment of up to eight years, or both. The sanction extends to natural persons acting on behalf of, or in the interest of, a legal person (Article 121(2)). The figures of PLN 5 million and five years, which circulated in industry commentary during the second half of 2025, related to earlier drafts; in the third legislative iteration, the sanctions were increased to the levels now in force. Additionally, continued activity after 1 July 2026 constitutes an independent ground for impugning the good repute of an applicant in subsequent authorisation proceedings (Article 63(10)(b) and (d) MiCA, read together with EBA/GL/2024/13).
Can I obtain a CASP licence in another EU Member State and operate in Poland?
Formally, yes—pursuant to the passport regime under Article 65 of MiCA. In practice, the variant is available only to entities with genuine operational substance in the relevant jurisdiction; the requirement of central administration in the authorising state (Article 59(2) MiCA) excludes letterbox companies. The ESMA statement of 17 April 2026 forecloses arrangements whereby an entity licensed in another Member State outsources functions such as crypto-asset custody to a non-EU or non-CASP-authorised entity. All EU national competent authorities operate under the same deadline and against similarly congested queues; a passport does not eliminate the interruption following 1 July 2026 but may, in narrow group configurations, shorten its duration.
What if I do not obtain a CASP licence by 1 July 2026?
The entire industry will not. KNF proceedings, by their nature, extend beyond that date. The question is not “how to meet the deadline” but “in which scenario one wishes to find oneself after 1 July.” Four pathways present themselves: submission of a complete CASP application with a parallel wind-down protocol; a passport from another EU jurisdiction; a merger or share sale to a licensed entity; and controlled wind-down. The choice depends on client profile, capital structure, and tolerance for a period without revenue. A detailed analysis of each pathway is set out in the body of this article above.
Robert Nogacki – licensed legal counsel (radca prawny, WA-9026), Founder of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec.
There are lawyers who practice law. And there are those who deal with problems for which the law has no ready answer. For over twenty years, Kancelaria Skarbiec has worked at the intersection of tax law, corporate structures, and the deeply human reluctance to give the state more than the state is owed. We advise entrepreneurs from over a dozen countries – from those on the Forbes list to those whose bank account was just seized by the tax authority and who do not know what to do tomorrow morning.
One of the most frequently cited experts on tax law in Polish media – he writes for Rzeczpospolita, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, and Parkiet not because it looks good on a résumé, but because certain things cannot be explained in a court filing and someone needs to say them out loud. Author of AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto: Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator. Co-author of the award-winning book Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy (Security of a Modern Company).
Kancelaria Skarbiec holds top positions in the tax law firm rankings of Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Four-time winner of the European Medal, recipient of the title International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.
He specializes in tax disputes with fiscal authorities, international tax planning, crypto-asset regulation, and asset protection. Since 2006, he has led the WGI case – one of the longest-running criminal proceedings in the history of the Polish financial market – because there are things you do not leave half-done, even if they take two decades. He believes the law is too serious to be treated only seriously – and that the best legal advice is the kind that ensures the client never has to stand before a court.
