Bank account blocking in Poland | Key information for entrepreneurs

Updated: 18.06.2024

There are several reasons why a bank account blockade could be applied to an entrepreneur in Poland. In addition, there are several independent authorities that can implement a bank account blockade in Poland, such as the prosecutor, the tax administration or the bank.

Although the rationale and procedure in each case of applying a bank account blockade differs, the nature of the blockade remains essentially the same. Each time, it is a harsh measure for entrepreneurs and taxpayers doing business in Poland.

In particular, therefore, it is worth familiarizing yourself with ways to avoid the blockade and how to effectively defend against it in order to minimize its effects, the value of the blocked funds or its duration.

What is an effective anti-fraud system? STIR bank account blocking

STIR (the Clearing House Information and Communication System) is an IT system used by Poland’s National Tax Administration (KAS) to monitor financial account activity in entrepreneurs’ bank accounts and prevent tax evasion.

Provisions on STIR are found in Division III B of the Tax Ordinance (Articles 119zg – 119zu).

What are the main tasks of STIR?

• • Monitoring account: STIR enables KAS to analyze transactions in business bank accounts in real time, allowing it to quickly detect suspicious activity.
  • Blocking of bank accounts after checking accounts.
  • Risk analysis: STIR is also used to analyze the risks associated with entrepreneurs’ activities, which allows targeting of control activities.
  • Countering undue VAT refunds and tax carousels: The system helps identify cases of claiming undue VAT refunds, and helps combat so-called VAT carousel crimes.

Types of STIR bank account blockade – What should you know?

The STIR blockade is an extraordinary measure and can be used only when there is a reasonable suspicion of unusual transactions such as fiscal crime or fiscal offense.

In the case of suspected tax extortion, the Head of KAS may block the entrepreneur’s bank account for a period of time:

Who may be affected by the STIR blockade	Authorized to impose STIR blockade	Maximum period of application of STIR blockade
Any entrepreneur – bank account holder	The Head of KAS or the Head of the Customs-Tax Office.	72 hours, extendable to 3 months

What is a short STIR lock?

A short STIR blockade can be imposed when there are indications that a trader is using his bank account for fraudulent activities, such as:

• Suspected involvement in a VAT carousel: A VAT carousel is a tax fraud involving the repeated sale of the same good or service through a chain of companies, one or more of which fails to pay VAT to the IRS.
• Suspicion of claiming an undue VAT refund: a business account may be blocked if the bank suspects that the account holder is claiming a VAT refund to which they are not entitled.
• Suspicion of issuing or acquiring false invoices that do not correspond to actual business events.
• Other activities aimed at the depletion of public debts: A blockade may also be imposed for other activities aimed at avoiding the payment of taxes or other public dues.

A short blockade is a form of request usually submitted by the Head of KAS or the Head of the Tax Office to the relevant bank, or payment institution, to apply the blockade.

Once the blockade is completed, the head of KAS decides on further action, such as extending the blockade, initiating a tax audit or discontinuing the proceedings.

Unfortunately, statistical data indicates that the 72-hour blocked account is almost always extended.

What is a long/extended STIR blockade?

The STIR blockade may be extended 72 hours after the imposition of a short blockade if there is a reasonable suspicion that the entrepreneur will not pay a tax liability of the equivalent of at least 10,000 euros.

What are the conditions for extending the STIR short blockade?

• Expiration of 72 hours after a short blockade: An extension may not be granted until 72 hours have passed since the short blockade was imposed.
• Suspicion of non-payment of tax liability: There must be a reasonable suspicion that the entrepreneur will not pay a tax liability of at least the equivalent of 10,000 euros.
• Decision of the Head of KAS: The decision to extend the blockade is made by the Head of KAS.

An extended STIR blockade can last a maximum of 3 months.

The STIR blocked account cannot be imposed in the following cases:

• To the accounts of non-business individuals, such as employees working under an employment contract.
• Lack of reasonable fear: The head of KAS may block an account only if there is a reasonable suspicion that the entrepreneur is using his account for tax extortion activities. Risk analysis alone is not sufficient to impose a block.
• Amount of potential tax liability less than 10,000 euros.
• Procedural errors: Examples of the most common procedural errors are the incorrect delivery or failure to deliver the blocking decision and the failure to provide sufficient reasons for the decision.

STIR frozen account criteria: What factors increase the risk of account blocking?

There is no official and overt catalog of criteria used by tax authorities before directing STIR checks and STIR blocking against an entrepreneur.

However, it is known that the decision to blockade is made on the basis of a risk analysis that takes into account various factors, such as:

• Frequency and value of transfer money,
• The countries from which the contractors come,
• industry of the entrepreneur’s activity,
• Compliance of transactions with tax returns,
• Entrepreneur’s tax history, including any tax arrears, penalties, and involvement in tax or criminal tax proceedings,
• Information from other sources obtained by KAS: KAS may also use information from other sources, such as law enforcement agencies, financial institutions or foreign tax administrations.

Factors that increase the risk of STIR blockage

• Participation in transaction chains: Traders participating in transaction chains, especially those of an international nature, are more vulnerable to STIR blocking.
• Transactions with high-risk entities: Transactions with entities that are considered so-called “disappearing taxpayers” or have a negative and unpaid taxes history can increase the risk of blockage.
• Unnaturally high VAT refunds: Entrepreneurs who claim abnormally high VAT refunds relative to the scale of their business may be subject to STIR blocking.
• Lack of cooperation with tax authorities: Failure to cooperate with tax authorities, such as avoiding tax audits or failing to provide explanations, can also contribute to account blockage.

What are the legal remedies against the STIR blockade?

In the case of application of a short blockade, there is no self-consistent remedy against it.

Extension of the blockade requires the decision of an order against which it is entitled:

1. Complaint – submitted to the Head of KAS (in the case of a decision issued by him) or to the competent Director of the Tax Administration Chamber (in the case of extension of the frozen bank account by the Head of the Customs and Fiscal Office) within 7 days from the date of delivery of the decision.

If the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber finds the complaint justified, he may liftthe blocking of the bank account.

If the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber finds the complaint unfounded, the blocking of the bank account is upheld.

2. Complaint to the administrative court – after exhausting the complaint procedure, the decision can be appealed to the administrative court within 30 days from the date of delivery of the final decision. The authority shall forward the case file and the response to the complaint to the court within 7 days of receipt of the complaint.

What are other grounds for blocking an account? Banking Law, AML and UNRF

Regardless of the STIR blockade, we can distinguish several other bases for the use of bank account blocking:

• blockade adjudicated under the Banking Law (hereinafter: “Banking Law“) (Article 106a),
• blockade adjudicated under the Law on Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (hereinafter: “AML“) (Article 86 – Article 95),
• blockade adjudicated under the Law on Capital Market Supervision (hereinafter: “UNRF“) (Art.39).

The rationale for the use of the blockade is provided here in the broadest terms and is as follows:

• there is a reasonable suspicion that the funds accumulated in the account are in whole or in part derived from a tax crime or a crime other than terrorist financing or money laundering,
• the funds accumulated in the account in whole or in part are related to a fiscal crime or a crime other than terrorist financing or money laundering

Who may be affected by blockades	Authorized to impose the blockade	Maximum period of application of the blockade
Every bank account holder, not just entrepreneurs.	Bank Prosecutor	72 hours 6 months + extension for another 6 months

The pattern of authorities in practice here is most often as follows:

1. The bank immediately blocked the account for a maximum of 72 hours.
2. Immediate notification by the bank to the General Inspector of Financial Information (hereinafter: “GIIF“),
3. GIIF’s request to suspend transactions or block the account for a period not exceeding 96 hours,
4. Notification by the GIIF to the prosecutor’s office on suspicion of crime and suspicious behavior,
5. Prosecutor’s decision to suspend transactions or block the account for a specified period of time, not exceeding 6 months with the possibility of extension for a further specified period of time, not exceeding another 6 months.

In the case of a STIR blockade, the bank is merely an executor of the KAS Chief’s decision. It has no authority to impose or lift such a blockade on its own, unlike the blockade applied under the Banking Law.

Key role of GIIF in blocking bank account

The GIIF plays a key role in Poland’s anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) system. It is a single-person central government administration body, operating within the Ministry of Finance.

The GIIF gathers information from various sources (mandatory institutions, law enforcement agencies, special services, foreign institutions) regarding suspicious financial transactions that may be related to illegal activity. It then analyzes this information to assess the risk and take appropriate action.

The GIIF also supervises mandatory institutions (e.g. banks, investment firms, currency exchange offices), which are required to apply financial security measures and report suspicious transactions.

It is at the request of the GIIF, as aresult of the GIIF’s analyses of financial flows, that most bank account blocks are applied under the Banking Law, and criminal proceedings are subsequently initiated.

Account blocking procedure – AML

The second increasingly common basis for prosecutors to adjudicate account blocking is the provisions of Chapter 8 of the AML, particularly Article 86 (9-11) of the AML.

It applies only to cases in which there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime of money laundering or terrorist financing has been committed. 

In practice, the justifications for the orders most often point to the likelihood of committing the crime of money laundering under Article 299 of the Criminal Code.

Who may be affected by the blockade	Authorized to impose the blockade	Maximum period of application of the blockade
Every bank account holder, not just entrepreneurs.
	Bank at the request of the GIIF	96 hours
	Prosecutor	6 months + extension for another 6 months by the National Prosecutor

The pattern of authorities in practice here is most often as follows:

1. The obliged institution shall immediately notify the GIIF if it has a reasonable raise suspicion that a certain transaction or certain assets may be related to money laundering or terrorist financing,
2. Notification by the GIIF to the prosecutor’s office on suspicion of crime,
3. Blocking of the bank account by the bank directly for a maximum of 96 hours,
4. Upon receipt of the GIIF’s notification, the prosecutor may by order suspend the transaction or block the account for a specified period, not exceeding 6 months, with the possibility of extension for a further specified period, not exceeding another 6 months,
5. The prosecutor may issue the decision referred to in point 4 also without prior notification to the GIIF.

Account blocking procedure – capital market

The blockade applied on the basis of UNRF regulations applies only to situations where crime is suspected:

• unauthorized use of insider information regarding financial instruments,
• unauthorized recommendation or solicitation to purchase or sell financial instruments to which the confidential information relates,
• manipulation of financial instruments or entering into an agreement with another person aimed at manipulation (crimes under Articles 181-183 of the Law on Trading in Financial Instruments), and the transaction that has been made or is to be made may be related to the commission of such a crime.

Who may be affected by the blockade	Authorized to impose the blockade	Maximum period of application of the blockade
Any holder of a securities account or omnibus account maintained by a supervised entity, another account in which financial instruments that are not securities are recorded, or a cash account	Supervised entity (e.g., investment funds, investment companies, commodity brokerage houses) at the request of the Chairman of the FSC or his deputy	96 hours
	Prosecutor	6 months + extension for another 6 months by the National Prosecutor

The measure is mainly aimed at fighting so-called stock market crime.

How to protect yourself from bank account blocking? Practical tips

We can generally divide security measures into:

• measures taken prior to the application of the blockade, preventive, applied in the course of business,
• procedural measures to combat the already applied account blockade.

At the stage before the blockade is applied, measures should be taken in the company to minimize the risk of suspicious transactions in the chain by mainly verifying counterparties and collecting all documents related to the counterparty and the transaction in question.

This is so that the actual nature of the transaction can be demonstrated if necessary. However, these measures are often either not applied at all or are insufficient.

Complaint against the blocking of a bank account: How and when to file?

First of all, there must be service of the blocking order, which opens the possibility of judicial review of the prosecutor’s decision.

It should be noted that, contrary to expectations, the content of the order and justification is very laconic. As a rule, no specific transactions that are considered suspicious are indicated, and in a vague manner, most often “the likelihood of the crime of money laundering“ is indicated without reference to any concrete circumstances.

To file a complaint, the entitled person has 7 days from the date of delivery of the decision to him. 

The prosecutor’s decision to apply the blocking of funds in the account is immediately enforceable, and a complaint filed does not stop its execution.

However, it is possible and worthwhile to include in the complaint a request to suspend enforcement of the blocking order until the complaint is heard.

In addition, the complaint is worth focusing on:

• demonstrating the actual and lawful conduct of business, as well as specific transactions, if mentioned by the authority, in connection with which the blockade occurred,
• demonstrating the source of funds, e.g., from actual services rendered, trade in goods,
• questioning the rationale for the blockade and the lack of connection of the funds to the criminal act,
• demonstrating deficiencies in procedural law.

After the prosecutor has formally reviewed the complaint, he generally forwards the complaint to the court. Here the prosecutor is not bound by any deadline, which is often abused.

The court should then schedule a hearing to hear the complaint, which involves waiting at least several months.

Motion to lift the account blockade: How to act effectively?

Since, to the extent not covered by the provisions of the Banking Law and AML, these laws refer to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter: “Criminal Code”), the provisions on property collateral will be of particular importance.

Pursuant to Article 291(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the property security should be immediately revoked in whole or in part if the reasons that caused it to be applied to a certain extent cease to exist, or reasons justifying its revocation even in part arise. A request for revocation or modification of the property collateral may be filed at any stage of the proceedings.

Bank account locks: What do you need to know to protect your business?

In summary, the number of blockades based on banking law and AML is regularly increasing.

There is also a drastic increase in the number of blockades of bank accounts using STIR, as well as the very use of STIR system tools to control financial operations and checking account details by entrepreneurs by tax authorities.

The STIR blockade focuses on cases involving tax evasion (VAT carousel, undue VAT refund), while the other blockades used by the prosecutor are primarily applicable in situations of suspected money laundering crime.

The use of a blockade of funds is very burdensome, as it impedes the day-to-day operation of the business and leads to a weakening or loss of liquidity. It also affects the entity’s image from the perspective of counterparties, as well as the loss of credibility and rating with financial services institutions.

In addition, it happens that the application of a blockade in the case of an illegal activity is only the beginning of the interference of the authorities with the assets and resources of the entity in question. At a later stage of the proceedings, there often appears a security interest in the same.

The extensive experience of our law firm’s lawyers, developed through numerous disputes involving frozen accounts and assets or blocked accounts, demonstrates that a substantive and methodical defense, along with proactive contact with various authorities, can lead to the recovery of funds. It also leads to the lifting of bank account freezes. This approach enhances procedural guarantees and standards for the affected individual.

Although the question of blocking or securing assets is often only incidental to the entire main criminal or tax investigation or audit, it is necessary to carefully prepare a line of defense already at this stage. It is also important to carefully select the additional documentation provided and made available to law enforcement or tax authorities, also taking into account the entirety of the proceedings and possible criminal and criminal-tax charges.

At the same time, speed and multifaceted action are essential here, which our lawyers ensure at every stage of the case.

FAQ-The most common questions about frozen bank account in Poland

The Head of KAS may freeze accounts if there is a reasonable suspicion that:

• The account is being used for fraudulent activity involving the Treasury.
• The account holders have not fulfilled their tax obligations.
• The taxpayer acts to the detriment of the Treasury.

You will not automatically receive information from the bank or KAS about the application of the STIR blockade. You can only check on your own whether your account has been blocked by sending a request to the bank.

You can:

• File a complaint with the Head of KAS. You have 7 days to do so from the day you receive information about the blockade.
• Appeal the decision of the Head of KAS to the administrative court. You have 30 days to do so from the day you receive the decision.

No, you cannot withdraw funds or transfer them to other account. There are certainly exceptions to the STIR blockade, but then you can use the bank account to a very limited extent, for example, to pay taxes, meet alimony obligations or pay the salary of the entrepreneur’s employees.

No, while you can minimize the risk of its occurrence. Care should be taken to ensure proper bookkeeping, verification of contractors, payment of taxes on time and good cooperation with the tax authorities.

Yes, in a situation where the blockade was unjustified, unfounded, or performed in an improper and non-compliant manner.

Under the Banking Law, the legislature exempts the bank from liability for any damage that may result from the good faith performance of duties related to the application of a block on a bank account.

This is because, according to Article 106a (10) of the Banking Law, if in the course of the proceedings it turns out that the implementation of the blockade was not related to crime or the concealment of criminal activities. The State Treasury shall be liable for the damage resulting from the implementation of the blockade of funds in the account.

The liability of the State Treasury is actualized when the following conditions are met:

1. damage has occurred,
2. an order was issued to block the account on suspicion of crime or concealment of criminal activity,
3. orders of discontinuance/conviction of acquittal were issued and,
4. there was a causal link between the damage and the blocking of the account.

The issue of liability is regulated differently in AML regulations. Article 91 of the AML clearly indicates that the performance by the obliged institution (bank) of the duties indicated above (Articles 86, 87 and 89), does not result in disciplinary, civil, criminal or other liability as defined by separate regulations.

The issue was similarly resolved in the UNRF, where the exclusion of all liability of the blocking entity, the supervised entity and persons acting on its behalf was explicitly prejudged.

At the client’s request, the bank may provide such information, but it has no such statutory obligation and does not do so automatically. Therefore, everything depends on the individual approach of the financial institution in question.

Yes. Increasingly, we can see the blocking of accounts/wallets where virtual currencies are deposited run by various cryptocurrency exchanges, such as Binance, Kraken, Bybit, Uniswap, among others.

Poland’s law enforcement agencies also have their own account completely dedicated to cryptocurrencies, where they store virtual currencies that have been secured from suspects. It is increasingly common to see USDT, TRX, or ETH funds blocked.

In the face of sometimes brief and vague bank account blocking orders and their rationales. The most effective strategy is to compile a comprehensive set of necessary documentation to affirm the legality of the business and the validity and truthfulness of the transactions.

This documentation may include contracts with contractors, correspondence with them, invoices, payment confirmations, and more.

Unfortunately, no. Filing a complaint does not automatically result in the immediate lifting of the frozen account. However, a request to do so may be made.

In principle, the funds should then be returned, after the account freeze is lifted. But in practice, most often the blockades are “transformed” into other measures used in criminal proceedings – seizure of physical evidence (which are also funds in the account) or property security.

This leaves the funds still frozen and at the disposal of law enforcement agencies.

No, these are other institutions for the application of which separate prerequisites are provided. However, property collateral is often the next step used after the maximum time to apply the bank account blockade.

Property security is subject to a separate complaint. Property security is generally applied to the person charged, while this is not a requirement for the application of an account blockade.

Account freezes can impact not only the trader and account holders (unless the one used within STIR) who conduct illegal activities and make suspicious transactions. However, most regularly, account freezes influence the trader who unknowingly appears in the whole chain of transactions considered suspicious.

It is evident that the use of bank freezes is most prevalent in the wholesale trade, particularly in the trade of metals, mineral raw materials, oil, waste, tobacco products, and electronics.

Yes, if you have been the victim of a crime of fraud, extortion, theft or any other crime whereby your funds have mistakenly ended up in the bank account of another, you should immediately contact a lawyer.

Lawyers in the body of the notice of suspected crime may include, among other things, a request for the prosecutor to apply a block on the bank account, property security and restitution.