Last updated: 09.02.2026 
Corruption and Bribery Facts in Poland
According to Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index, Poland ranked 45th with a score of 55/100 – its lowest position since 2012.
This decline reflects growing concerns over the rule of law, particularly following the political changes introduced after 2015. Legal reforms affecting judicial independence, the merging of key legal roles, and pressure on prosecutors and judges have drawn criticism from EU institutions and domestic legal bodies.
Legal Basis: Anti-Corruption Regulation under Polish Criminal Law
The principal legal framework governing bribery and corruption offences in Poland is set out in the Penal Code of 6 June 1997, which classifies such conduct primarily as criminal offences.
These crimes fall into the following categories:
- Offences against the activities of state institutions and local government, including:
- venality (art. 228 of the Penal Code);
- bribery (art. 229 of the Penal Code);
- paid protection (art. 230 and art. 230a of the Penal Code); and
- qualified type of abuse of power (art. 231 § 2 of the Penal Code),
- Offences against business transactions and property interests in civil law relations, including:
- qualified type of mismanagement (art. 296 § 2 of the Penal Code);
- managerial bribery (art. 296a of the Penal Code);
- corruption of creditors (art. 302 § 2-3 of the Penal Code); and
- disrupting of tender (auction) (art. 305 § 1-3 of the Penal Code),
- Other relevant categories of crimes, notably:
- qualified type of intellectual forgery (art. 271 § 3 of the Penal Code); and
- electoral corruption (art. 250a of the Penal Code).
Offence of Official (state-related) Corruption and Bribery
Venality Offence
The fundamental form of the offence of venality involves accepting a material or personal benefit – or merely a promise of such a benefit – in connection with the performance of a public function.This conduct constitutes a criminal offence and is punishable by imprisonment ranging from six months to eight years.
The applicable penalty may be increased where additional circumstances arise, such as accepting a benefit in return for engaging in conduct that violates the law, making the performance of official duties conditional upon the receipt of a benefit, or accepting a benefit of particularly high value.
Bribery Offence
The offence of bribery arises where a perpetrator offers or promises to provide a material or personal benefit to a person performing a public function, in connection with that person’s official duties.
This act is also punishable by imprisonment from six months to eight years. The penalty for the above crime may be higher if additional conditions are met, such as, inter alia, providing a benefit in exchange for conduct constituting a violation of the law, making the performance of an official act contingent upon receipt of the benefit, or offering a benefit of great value.
Paid Protection
Criminal liability for the offence of paid protection is imposed on any individual who, in exchange for a material or personal benefit – or a promise thereof – undertakes to act as an intermediary in resolving a matter.
This includes
- invoking influence,
- creating or confirming the belief that such influence exists,
- or exploiting someone else’s belief in their influence.
The scope of this provision includes influence over state or local government institutions, international organizations, domestic or foreign entities managing public funds, state-owned enterprises, commercial companies involving the State Treasury, local government units, or other state legal persons.
This offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment ranging from six months to eight years.
Likewise, any person who offers or promises to provide a material or personal benefit in exchange for intermediation in such a matter – specifically where the intention is to unlawfully influence the decision, action, or omission of a person performing a public function – is subject to the same criminal penalty. These forms of conduct fall squarely within the scope of bribery offenses and are treated as prohibited acts under Polish law.
Abuse of power offence
The qualified form of abuse of power is committed when a public official, acting beyond the limits of their authority or failing to carry out their official duties, causes harm to public or private interests in order to obtain financial or personal gain.
This offence is punishable by imprisonment from one to ten years, reflecting the seriousness of such violations within the framework of anti-corruption regulations.
Common Elements of Official Corruption and Bribery Offences
All of the aforementioned corruption and bribery offences may only be committed intentionally. In most cases, this refers to direct intention – that is, the perpetrator acts with the purpose of committing the offence. However, eventual intention is also sufficient in some cases, meaning the individual foresees the possibility of committing the offence and accepts that outcome.
All of these offences involve the provision or acceptance of a material or personal benefit. Such benefits may accrue either to the perpetrator personally or to a third party – whether a natural person or an entity. According to established case law, a material benefit includes any increase in assets, such as the ability to sell goods at a higher price or the reduction of liabilities, for example through a tax exemption.
By contrast, a personal benefit encompasses any non-financial advantage that fulfils a particular personal need—examples include a job promotion, sexual favours, the awarding of a state decoration, or the arrangement of an attractive trip abroad.
Offence of Commercial Corruption and Bribery
Mismanagement offence
A person who, under an obligation arising from an act, a decision of a competent authority, or an agreement, manages property matters or business operations on behalf of a natural or legal person or an organisational unit without legal personality, and causes significant material damage to such entity by abusing entrusted powers or by failing to perform their duties—while acting with the intent to obtain financial gain—is subject to criminal liability for the qualified type of mismanagement offence.
This form of commercial corruption is punishable by imprisonment from six months to eight years. However, where the perpetrator voluntarily compensates the damage in full prior to the initiation of criminal investigations, the law provides for an exemption from punishment.
This offence may be committed, in particular, by management personnel of commercial companies, non-governmental organisations, universities, public institutions, and other private or public entities. Individuals potentially liable include members of the management board, commercial proxies, directors, partners in partnerships, and also, for example,
- bankruptcy trustees,
- receivers,
- court-appointed curators,
- public officials,
- or any other persons performing managerial functions in the private sector or public units entrusted with the management of property.
Managerial Bribery Offence
The crime of managerial bribery occurs when a person holding a managerial position in a business entity – or acting under an employment, mandate, or specific-task contract – demands or accepts a material or personal benefit, or the promise thereof.
This must be in return for abusing their authority or failing to fulfil duties in a way that may cause material damage to the entity, constitute unfair competition, or result in unjustified preferential treatment for the buyer or recipient of goods, services, or other benefits.
This bribery offence is punishable by imprisonment from three months to five years.
A person who offers or promises a material or personal benefit in the above-described circumstances is subject to an identical penalty.
Corruption of Creditors
Accepting or offering a financial advantage to a creditor in connection with bankruptcy or pre-bankruptcy proceedings, where such benefit results in harm to other creditors, gives rise to criminal liability for the offence of corruption of creditors. This crime carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to three years. The same penalty applies to any creditor who demands or accepts such a benefit to the detriment of others.
Tender Disruption Offence
The crime of disrupting a tender (auction) includes the following basic types:
- obstructing or frustrating a tender or public procurement process, causing harm to the property owner, the party for whom the process is conducted, or the public interest – punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment;
- entering into an agreement with another person, providing or disseminating information or concealing important circumstances, in order to exert unlawful influence on the result of an ongoing or prepared tender or public procurement procedure, acting to the detriment of the owner of property, person or institution for which the tender is or is to be performed or which conducts or is to conduct proceedings, or to the detriment of the public interest – which is subject to the penalty of imprisonment from three months to five years.
If the perpetrator of the crimes specified above commits them in order to obtain financial or personal gain, he or she shall be subject to a more severe penalty in the form of imprisonment from six months to eight years.
Common Elements of Commercial Corruption and Bribery Offences
All commercial bribery and corruption offences described above require intentional conduct, except for the crime of mismanagement, which may give rise to liability even in the case of unintentional fault. This exception is unique among economic offences and has been the subject of legal literature and case law, due to the concern that it may result in criminal liability for ordinary business decisions involving risk—an inherent feature of public and economic life and international business transactions.
Penalties for Bribery and Corruption Offences
Where a person abuses their professional position in committing a crime – or where continued performance of that role poses a threat to legally protected interests – the court may impose a ban on holding a specific position or practising a particular profession as a penal measure.
If an individual holding public office is convicted of venality, paid protection, managerial bribery, or tender manipulation, the court is obliged to impose a ban on holding any position or employment in public-related entities – including state and local government bodies and institutions, as well as companies governed by commercial law where the State Treasury or local government unit holds, directly or indirectly, at least 10% of shares.
Notably, this prohibition may also apply to individuals who did not hold public office but were convicted of any of the aforementioned offences or the offence of bribery.
Additionally, the court may prohibit an individual from conducting a specific business activity if the conviction concerns a crime committed in the course of that activity and if its continued performance would endanger legally protected rights.
All of the above penal measures may be imposed for a duration of one to fifteen years. In the event of recidivism, the court may impose a lifetime prohibition on holding positions in public institutions, bodies, or companies.
Beyond the aforementioned penal measures, Article 18 of the Polish Commercial Companies Code of 15 September 2000 introduces a statutory ban on serving in corporate functions—such as a member of the management board, supervisory board, audit committee, liquidator, or commercial proxy—by any person convicted by final judgment of corruption or bribery-related crimes.
This statutory prohibition lasts for five years, unless the conviction has been previously expunged. However, within three months from the date the judgment becomes final, the convicted person may apply to the court that issued the judgment for a waiver or reduction of the ban’s duration.
Corruption Prosecution and Court Proceedings in Poland
The offences described above are, as a rule, treated as public offences and are therefore subject to ex officio prosecution by the judicial authorities designated for this purpose. The competent body for conducting or supervising proceedings in cases concerning bribery and corruption allegations is the prosecutor’s office. This authority plays a central role in combating corruption as outlined in the Polish Criminal Code and related legal provisions.
An exception applies to the offence of disrupting a tender, which is prosecuted only upon request by the injured party. Consequently, unless such a request is submitted, the prosecutor’s office cannot initiate criminal proceedings, or if already initiated, must discontinue them. However, this exception does not apply when the injured party is the State Treasury, or if the tender, auction, or public procurement is financed from public funds.
In practice, the prosecutor may delegate the conduct of the investigation—entirely or in part—to the Police or other law enforcement agencies, including the Border Guard, the Internal Security Agency, the National Tax Administration, or the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau. These bodies may also be assigned specific procedural tasks, such as collecting evidence. Regardless of delegation, the prosecutor retains supervisory authority over the course of the proceedings to the extent that he or she does not conduct them personally.
Adjudication of bribery and corruption offences generally falls within the jurisdiction of district courts, which serve as courts of first instance. However, in certain cases – particularly those involving aggravated forms of such offences that carry more severe penalties—the competent court of first instance will be the regional court.
Judgments issued by the court of first instance may be appealed to a second-instance court, which will be either a regional court or an appellate court, depending on the case. In matters expressly provided for by law, an extraordinary appeal may be lodged against the judgment of the second-instance court in the form of a cassation appeal, which is examined by the Supreme Court.
Law and policy relating to issues such as facilitation payments and hospitality
Under the Polish Penal Code, there are no specific statutory provisions that directly regulate the legality of facilitation payments or hospitality. Both of these forms of benefit may, however, fall within the scope of material or personal benefits, and as such, each instance carries a potential risk of being classified as a criminal offence.
Whether such conduct constitutes a crime depends entirely on the intention of the parties involved and the factual circumstances of the case.
It shall be remembered that the bribery and corruption crimes refers to both material (financial) and personal benefit, so monetary value is not necessary to consider that a crime has occurred.
In some cases, a crime may be committed through the acceptance or offer of non-material advantages, such as:
- appointment to a prestigious but unpaid position in a non-commercial organisation (e.g. president of a scientific society),
- publication of a book for which the author does not receive remuneration but which serves their professional advancement,
- the awarding of an honorary title, or
- receipt of a distinction not accompanied by any financial compensation.
All of the above examples fall within the legal definition of benefits and, depending on the context, may be classified as criminal acts under anti-corruption provisions.
In its decision of 26 February 1988 (Case No. VI KZP 34/87), the Supreme Court of Poland held that the determination of whether a particular gift genuinely fits the ordinary understanding of that term—or whether it constitutes a concealed form of prohibited material benefit—depends on a variety of subjective and objective factors. These include detailed factual findings as well as situational and moral assessments. This judicial position remains applicable and relevant to this day.
Investigation, Self-Reporting and Enforcement Procedures in Polish Anti-Corruption Law
Self-reporting
Pursuant to the provisions of the Polish Penal Code, a perpetrator who has provided a material benefit as part of a bribery offence—whether involving bribery, paid protection, or managerial bribery—may be exempt from punishment if the benefit (or promise thereof) was accepted and the perpetrator voluntarily notified the competent enforcement authority, disclosing all relevant circumstances of the offence before the authority became aware of it.
Moreover, a person who committed the offence of disrupting a tender (auction) is likewise not subject to punishment if they report the act to the authority responsible for prosecuting crimes, or to the competition protection authority of an EU Member State or the European Commission, and disclose all relevant details before the competent authority becomes aware of the offence.
With respect to commercial corruption and bribery offences, where the perpetrator has voluntarily compensated in full the damage caused by the crime, the court may apply extraordinary leniency, or in certain cases, may refrain from imposing a penalty altogether.
Amicable Settlements and Procedural Agreements
The Polish Code of Criminal Procedure of 6 June 1997 does not contain provisions analogous to civil settlements that would allow for the amicable resolution of criminal disputes.
From the formal point of view, criminal proceedings cannot be concluded by a settlement between the accused and either the prosecutor or the injured party. The court is required to either acquit or convict the accused. The discontinuation of criminal proceedings in corruption cases based on the criterion of negligible social harm is, in practice, nearly impossible.
However, certain procedural mechanisms allow the parties to agree on the type and amount of punishment, which can facilitate faster resolution of cases on mutually acceptable terms.
In particular, during court proceedings, and up until the conclusion of the first examination of all defendants at the main hearing, the accused may voluntarily submit to punishment—by filing an application for the issuance of a conviction along with a specific penalty or penal measure, without the need for evidentiary proceedings. The court may approve such an application if there is no doubt as to the facts or guilt, and if the aims of the proceedings can still be achieved. This agreement-based procedure requires the consent of the prosecutor and no objection from the injured party.
Similarly, during the investigative stage, if the suspect pleads guilty and there are no doubts as to the circumstances or their guilt, and their conduct indicates that the objectives of the proceedings will be fulfilled, the prosecutor may forego further investigation. Instead of filing an indictment, the prosecutor may submit a request to the court for a guilty verdict to be delivered at a hearing, including penalties agreed upon with the suspect—while also considering the legally protected interests of the injured party.
Whistleblowing
In 2019 the EU adopted the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.
The Directive came into force in December 2019 and had until December 2021 to be implemented by EU Member States. However, until now the Polish Parliament has not transferred it into national law. The draft of the Act on the protection of persons reporting violations of the law of October 18, 2021 is stuck in legislative work.
Cross-Border Cooperation in Anti-Corruption Enforcement
Authorities in EU Member States maintain close cooperation in handling cross-border criminal cases, including those involving bribery and corruption. Although the scope of such cooperation is broad, in practice it most frequently involves:
- assistance in interrogating witnesses located abroad,
- securing documents held by foreign entities,
- locating and apprehending suspects who are evading justice, and
- their extradition to the jurisdiction conducting the proceedings to allow for prosecution and sentencing.
The above issues may also be the subject of cooperation between Poland and other countries that are not members of the EU. In such cases, the legal framework is typically based on bilateral international agreements on mutual legal assistance in criminal cases, covering both evidentiary procedures and extradition. Due to ongoing Polish-Ukrainian cooperation, particular relevance has recently been given to the Agreement between the Republic of Poland and Ukraine on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil and Criminal Matters, signed in Kiev on 24 May 1993.
It should also be noted that on June 1, 2021, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office began its operations, which is an independent body of the European Union liable for conducting investigations, bringing and supporting accusations against perpetrators of crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests, including fraud, corruption, money laundering and cross-border VAT fraud. Poland has not yet joined the above initiative.
It is also worth noting that on 1 June 2021, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) commenced operations. This independent EU body is authorised to investigate, prosecute, and bring to judgment crimes affecting the European Union’s financial interests, including fraud, corruption, money laundering, and cross-border tax fraud. As of today, Poland is not a participating country in the EPPO framework.
Corporate liability for bribery and corruption offences
Under the Polish legal system, criminal liability is primarily attributed to natural persons who directly commit offences. The liability of corporate entities is secondary and conditional, depending on the unlawful conduct of an individual.
According to the Act on the Liability of Collective Entities for Acts Prohibited Under Penalty of 28 October 2002, a corporate entity may be held responsible for the conduct of a natural person acting: The court imposes a fine on the corporate entity in the amount from PLN 1,000 to PLN 5,000,000, but not higher than 3% of the revenue generated in the financial year in which the crime was committed.
Moreover, the court may order the forfeiture of the property of a corporate entity and impose certain prohibitions on it, for example, a prohibition on applying for public contracts or a prohibition on access to public funds.
The above-mentioned liability of corporate entities may be applicable in the events of the conviction for the commercial corruption and bribery crimes.
