The International Investigations Review: Poland
Depending on the nature of the legal violation, the investigation or control proceedings may be conducted by law enforcement bodies or administrative bodies.
Criminal investigations are, as a matter of principle, carried out by a prosecutor's office, as it is the key obligation of each prosecutor's office to maintain law and order and prosecute crimes. In particular, the purpose of the investigation is to establish whether a crime has been committed, the identity of the perpetrator and subsequently – if the evidence collected appears to prove fault and perpetration – to file an indictment. The prosecutor's office should also make sure that no indictment is filed against an innocent person; in an event of this kind, the case should be annulled.
The prosecutor is obliged to launch an investigation where there is a justified suspicion of a crime having been committed. An investigation may be launched ex officio or at the initiative of the notifying or the aggrieved party, who must submit a formal (oral or written) notification. For the institution of proceedings with respect to certain crimes, the aggrieved party must file a motion for prosecution. After such a motion has been filed, the proceedings are conducted by enforcement bodies, but it is the aggrieved party that decides whether it wants the perpetrators of the crime to be prosecuted. A motion must be filed for the prosecution of certain business crimes, such as mismanagement (if the State Treasury is not the aggrieved party) or the unauthorised use of someone's business secrets by another person or business. If no such motion is filed, then no proceedings will take place.
Since 2016, the prosecutors' offices have operated under new organisational rules. The separation that had previously existed between the position of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General's Office has been removed. The tasks of the Attorney General's Office have been taken over by the National Prosecutor's Office, headed by the Deputy of the Attorney General's Office – the National Prosecutor. The place of the appeal prosecutors' offices has been taken by the regional prosecutors' offices, which will deal with organised business crime and tax crimes.
An exception has been introduced in the regulation that provided for the independence of individual prosecutors, which provides that a prosecutor is obliged to comply with the directives, instructions and orders of the superior prosecutor (who could be the regional or national prosecutor). Orders may concern the content of the tasks carried out in a specific case.
Crimes are also identified and prosecuted by the police, who have powers to institute preparatory proceedings for less serious crimes; investigations carried out by the police are supervised by a prosecutor. In addition to the police, the power to prosecute crimes is also enjoyed by the Internal Security Agency, the Central Anti-corruption Bureau, the Central Investigation Bureau, the Border Guard and bodies authorised to conduct preparatory proceedings in cases for fiscal offences (within the framework of the National Tax Administration – tax offices, tax administration chambers, tax and customs offices). The other enforcement authorities, as a rule, enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations as the police in criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, particularly risky operations (such as dawn raids) are usually performed either by specialised police units or one of the above agencies.
The Code of Criminal Procedure states that business entities must assist law enforcement bodies upon request. Over the course of an investigation, a law enforcement body may request that a business entity voluntarily provides documents that could represent evidence in the case. If the release of the documents is denied, they are most frequently secured through a search, but law enforcement bodies are not able, for example, to impose a fine for lack of cooperation. An alternative approach may be adopted if criminal proceedings are being obstructed by the perpetrator of a crime being helped to avoid criminal liability. Concealing or destroying evidence that supports the suspicion of a crime constitutes a separate criminal offence and the perpetrator is subject to a penalty of imprisonment for between three months and five years. The same penalty is imposed for any obstruction of criminal proceedings with an intent to assist a perpetrator and help him or her avoid criminal liability. Therefore, one should distinguish between instances of limited cooperation during which account is taken of company interests (for example, by demanding that the bodies respect company secrets) and the aforementioned crime.
Whether an adversarial stance towards the enforcement authorities is a real possibility depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the kind of offence being prosecuted.
Polish law does not provide for the obligation to self-report in relation to committing crimes. Significantly, this lack of obligation to self-incriminate is one of the key principles of criminal proceedings. Given that criminal liability may only be incurred by individuals, this principle is not directly applicable to business entities.
The obligation to report the commission of an offence only applies to situations in which crimes have been committed by other parties, and this relates to serious crimes prosecuted under the Criminal Code or those that will harm national security. As regards any other types of crimes, the criminal procedure provisions do not provide for a sanction for failure to report them; in particular, Polish law does not provide for a general obligation to report internal irregularities in business entities to the authorities.
With respect to fiscal crimes, it is only possible for the person responsible for committing the act to avoid criminal fiscal liability by making a 'voluntary disclosure' or adjustment to a tax return. The Penal Fiscal Code stipulates a number of specific requirements for acts of repentance that need to be met for any actions to avoid liability to be effective.
Although not exactly a self-reporting obligation, there is an obligation to report to the General Inspector of Financial Information any transactions that may represent acts of money laundering. As regards leniency measures in competition law, the competition authority might reduce the amount of the administrative penalty or even decide not to impose such a penalty on an entity that entered into a competition-limiting agreement if that entity submitted an appropriate petition and fully disclosed all important facts regarding the agreement. Full and immediate disclosure and full compliance are required. The disclosing entity is also obliged not to disclose the fact that the petition has been submitted, in particular to the other parties to the agreement in question.
ii Internal investigations
Polish law does not directly provide for the obligation to carry out internal investigations once managers receive information about irregularities within an enterprise, nor is there any obligation to report the results thereof. It is assumed, however, that conducting an internal investigation represents fulfilment of the obligation to take care of the interests of the enterprise under management. Failure to verify signs of irregularity may represent grounds for liability for damages and, in extreme cases, for criminal liability for mismanagement. Internal investigations are conducted not only when the provisions of law have been violated to obtain benefits for the enterprise but also when, as a result of the law being violated, the enterprise has been harmed.
Notwithstanding the above, specific entities (e.g., banks, investment funds, entities managing alternative investment companies, insurance companies, reinsurance companies, as well as entities conducting brokerage activities and fiduciary banks) are obliged on the basis of special provisions to maintain tight compliance control or an internal audit system. These systems have a similar function to internal investigations and are, at times, subject to compulsory reporting. Failure to properly maintain the aforementioned systems may result in one or more of many administrative sanctions being imposed on the entity. Moreover, the Act on Money Laundering and Prevention of Financing Terrorism puts an obligation on entities such as banks, other financial institutions and even law firms to introduce internal procedures to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
As internal investigations are not regulated, the course of an investigation in either of the situations described above will not differ considerably; however, substantial differences appear when law enforcement bodies institute official investigations or a company decides to report existing irregularities. The enterprise may obtain the status of aggrieved party and enjoy the attributable rights within preparatory proceedings and, at a later stage, court proceedings, if an indictment is filed. These rights include inspecting the case files, participating in the investigation (i.e., participation in witness hearings) and appealing disadvantageous decisions made during the proceedings (such as a decision to discontinue the proceedings). At the court stage, an aggrieved party may act as auxiliary prosecutor to, inter alia, demand compensation of damages or a particular penalty.
In recent years, the number of internal investigations regarding irregularities in the private sector has increased noticeably. In many instances, this is owing to the operation in Poland of companies regulated by the strict rules of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the UK Bribery Act or the French SAPIN II Law. Moreover, many Polish companies that operate in Germany will have to comply with German anti-corruption law.
Commonly, an internal investigation will encompass a review of business email correspondence and electronic files, and the company's financial and contractual documents, and meetings with employees. As regards confidentiality and secrecy, no specific regulations exist and, therefore, use of any information within an internal investigation must comply with generally applicable provisions (especially the EU General Data Protection Regulation). Processing of personal data (except sensitive data) is generally permitted within an internal investigation. However, obtaining the necessary consent from the person to whom the data relates is recommended.
As it stands, Polish law does not impose a sufficiently general regulation on whistle-blowing. However, employees who disclose irregularities or other undesirable circumstances within an organisation do enjoy protection from any resulting discriminatory treatment by employers and managers, although this does not guarantee that a whistle-blower will not suffer negative consequences.
The provisions of the Labour Code do not provide any special protection for people who, in their capacity as employees, have been involved in illegal activities. The employment contract of a whistle-blower who has been involved in criminal activities may be terminated under ordinary procedures or even under dismissal procedures, depending on the circumstances of the case, even though that person reported the irregularities, as long as the treatment of the employee is not discriminatory. Therefore, it should be considered that regulations protecting whistle-blowers are missing from the Labour Code and thus, in many situations, potential whistle-blowers will not have any incentive to disclose irregularities. Nonetheless, numerous firms have adopted measures to allow anonymous reporting of irregularities noticed within firms. Sometimes, anonymous hotlines or email boxes are made available through which employees can point out violations of law or ethical standards. Despite these efforts, the number of confirmed whistle-blowers in Poland has so far not been significant.
Notwithstanding the above, the whistle-blowing issue is at the stage of appearing under Polish legislation. Pursuant to the Act on Money Laundering and Prevention of Financing Terrorism, some specific institutions are obliged to create an anonymous whistle-blowing procedure of reporting irregularities in the scope of money laundering by employees.
Banks in Poland are obliged to adopt formal whistle-blowing procedures, including an indication of the management board member responsible for handling matters related to whistle-blowing. A bank's whistle-blowing policy is subject to periodic internal assessment.
In November 2019, an amendment was passed to the Act on Public Offering, the Conditions Governing the Introduction of Financial Instruments to Organised Trade, and on Public Companies. It provides an obligation for any legal entity that issues or proposes to issue securities to have procedures for anonymous employee reports to a designated member of the management board and, in special cases, to the supervisory board of violations of the law (in particular the provisions of Regulation 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on prospectus to be published), procedures and ethical standards.
Pursuant to the Warsaw Stock Exchange's code of corporate governance, Best Practice for GPW Listed Companies, it is recommended that companies should organise appropriate systems for reporting irregularities. Poland is also obliged to implement the EU Whistleblower Directive2 by 17 December 2021. Pursuant to the provisions of the Directive, internal reporting channels and procedures should meet the minimum standards; in particular, guaranteeing the confidentiality of the identity of the reporting person, which is a cornerstone of whistle-blower protection. The Directive also requires that the person or department competent to receive the report diligently follows it up and informs the reporting person within a reasonable time frame about the follow-up. Moreover, the entities having in place internal reporting procedures are required to provide easily understandable and widely accessible information on these procedures as well as on procedures to report externally to relevant competent authorities.
When it comes to criminal liability, a person disclosing information to law enforcement bodies regarding crimes and the circumstances of the perpetration thereof may expect extraordinary mitigation of punishment. If a perpetrator discloses to law enforcement bodies previously unknown circumstances relating to a crime that carries a penalty of more than five years' imprisonment, he or she may submit a motion for extraordinary mitigation of punishment or even a conditional suspension thereof. Furthermore, in the event of corruption in business and in the public sector, a perpetrator of 'active' corruption is not subject to penalty if, after the fact of the corruption, that person notifies law enforcement bodies and discloses all significant circumstances of the deed, and all this takes place before law enforcement bodies have become aware of the facts.
i Corporate liability
The current Act on Liability of Collective Entities for Acts Prohibited under Penalty, which regulates issues of quasi-criminal liability of commercial companies, has been in force since 28 November 2003. The Act is applicable if a person acting in the name of a company has committed one of the crimes specified in the Act and the company gained, or could have gained, any benefit from this act, whether financial or not. However, as follows from practice to date, the law enforcement bodies do not commence proceedings in every case in which this possibility has arisen.
The list of crimes, the commission of which may cause the commencement of criminal proceedings, includes:
- corruption in business;
- credit and subsidy fraud;
- money laundering;
- crimes linked to making repayment of creditors impossible and reducing their satisfaction;
- failure to file a bankruptcy petition on time;
- insider trading; and
- public corruption.
Numerous other crimes are specified in other pieces of legislation that regulate specific areas of economic activity.
A condition for commencing proceedings against a company is that it has been established by a legally final guilty verdict that a crime has been committed by an individual acting in the name of the company. There are two other instances when proceedings against a company may be commenced: a verdict that conditionally discontinues criminal proceedings against such an individual, or a verdict that discontinues criminal proceedings by stating that despite the crime having been committed, the perpetrator cannot be punished. Corporate quasi-criminal liability always stems from personal criminal liability.
Liability on the basis of the above-mentioned Act may be imposed in the event that one of the following is proven: (1) at least a lack of due diligence in the choice of the person representing the entity, who is also the perpetrator of an offence; or (2) poor organisation of the company, which did not ensure the avoidance of the commitment of an offence, which could have been prevented if the body or representative of the collective entity had applied the required due diligence.
The liability arising under this Act is non-transferable; that is, in the case of a merger, division or restructuring of the relevant company, the liability expires. However, the court might impose an interim prohibition on transformations of this kind at a company to prevent it from avoiding liability by these means.
As regards criminal proceedings, although in the strict sense a company cannot be the accused, it is nonetheless possible during the course of proceedings to hand down a judgment ordering a company to reinstate any benefits gained as the result of a crime committed by an individual. In this case, the company becomes a quasi-party and may defend itself against liability by availing itself of certain rights to which the accused is usually entitled. An entity obliged to return benefits has the right to study the case files of the proceedings, may take part in the hearing before the court, file motions to admit evidence, put questions to the witnesses and appeal unfavourable decisions and verdicts.
In turn, in such proceedings the company may face auxiliary liability. An entity that is liable on an auxiliary basis is liable for a fine imposed on the perpetrator of a fiscal crime if, when committing the crime, the perpetrator acted in the name of the company and the company gained or could have gained financial benefit.
As regards representation, the original perpetrator and the corporate entity may be represented by the same attorney or counsel, even though its role would be slightly different in each of these proceedings.
The Act on Liability of Collective Entities for Acts Prohibited under Penalty provides for the possibility of a judgment with regard to a company, imposing a fine of between 1,000 zlotys and 5 million zlotys (but which cannot exceed 3 per cent of the revenue gained in the year in which the crime that forms the basis for liability was committed). The court will order the mandatory forfeit of any financial benefits gained from the crime, even indirectly.
In addition, the following punishments are possible with regard to collective entities:
- a ban on promotion and advertising;
- a ban on availing of public aid;
- a ban on availing of aid from international organisations;
- a ban on applying for public tenders; and
- making public any information about the judgment handed down.
In the event of auxiliary liability for a tax crime, the scope of liability is determined by the amount of the fine imposed on the accused. Essentially, fines for a fiscal crime can range up to 26,879,997.60 zlotys; these amounts change each year in line with the increase in the minimum wage. In practice, however, it is very unusual for fines to exceed 100,000 zlotys.
As regards administrative liability, the amount of fines and the spectrum of other sanctions (revocation of licences or concessions) varies significantly, depending on the relevant duties and legal bases for their imposition. Administrative fines might be very severe, capped at 10 million zlotys (much more than the maximum possible criminal fine) or up to 10 per cent of yearly revenue in the most extreme cases. There is no uniform regulation of administrative sanctions in the Polish legal system.
iii Compliance programmes
At present, legal provisions do not impose an obligation on business entities to implement a compliance programme; however, many firms operate such programmes. They are particularly common in companies with foreign capital and in the financial sector.
The Act on Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Prevention obliges only specific entities to appoint a compliance officer who will be responsible for supervising the appropriate application of the Act.
Pursuant to the Best Practice for GPW Listed Companies, creating and supervising a compliance system is part of the duties of the company's management board and supervisory board.
A functioning compliance programme is helpful in cases of actions contrary to the law that harm the interests of enterprises. A frequent problem that arises in criminal proceedings involving crimes harming enterprises is the lack of internal regulations clearly laying down the procedures and scope of duties, as a result of which it is difficult to show the actions or omissions of the guilty party.
In the absence of a general regulation of compliance, it would be difficult to establish any specific recommended elements of compliance programmes. As a rule, it would be advisable for the scope of such programmes to cover all branches and subsidiaries of a given entity and ensure regular reviews of their activity. Shortcomings to that extent usually have a very strong negative effect on the efficiency of compliance programmes. The preferred course of action tends to be to involve accounting and auditing experts.
iv Prosecution of individuals
As has already been mentioned, the position of a company in proceedings conducted by law enforcement bodies against an individual depends to a large extent on whether the company gained any benefit from the crime or whether it was harmed by the crime.
At present, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that an aggrieved party is an entity whose interests have been directly harmed or threatened by a crime. Not every crime that results in an enterprise suffering damage will allow it to exercise its rights as an aggrieved party in criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure grant a firm the right to appeal a decision by the prosecutor to discontinue an investigation if the firm notified the prosecutor about a crime that harmed its interests, even if only indirectly. To date, only a directly aggrieved party has had the right to file a complaint against decisions on discontinuing an investigation, whereas a person indirectly aggrieved has not had the right to any control over the court. The new regulation should be viewed positively as it grants greater litigation guarantees and may lead to more effective crime prevention.
If proceedings against an individual involve a breach of law that may lead to a company being held liable, a question arises as to the legitimacy of cooperation between the accused and the firm. In the vast majority of cases, a judgment that is favourable to the accused rules out the risk of sanctions for the firm. There are no prohibitions whatsoever on joint defences, so cooperation within the proceedings is admissible. However, situations may arise when the accused's line of defence will not be consistent with the interests of the firm. This may be the case, for example, when the accused bases his or her defence on implicating another company employee or manager who is indeed guilty of committing a crime.
The basic duty of the lawyer towards a client in criminal proceedings is to act exclusively for his or her benefit. Pursuant to the position of the judiciary and doctrine that has dominated for years, a defence lawyer must disclose all circumstances that are favourable to the client, even if the client does not consent to this himself or herself.
As regards employee issues, the commission of a crime undoubtedly entitles an employer to terminate the employment contract under a disciplinary procedure. What is important is that the reasons for termination of the contract should be precisely indicated in the written termination of the employment contract and these reasons can be verified by the court if the employee appeals to the Labour Court. If the reasons given in the termination of the contract prove groundless, the employee may be reinstated by the court or may be entitled to a compensation claim, or both.
As regards payment of legal fees, there are no specific regulations that would prohibit any company from covering the costs of legal services rendered to its employee or a member of its body.
i Extraterritorial jurisdiction
The provisions of criminal law essentially provide for liability for crimes committed in Poland. Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code, a crime is deemed to have been committed at the place the perpetrator acted or omitted to perform an act he or she was obliged to perform, or where the effects of the crime were felt or were intended to occur.
With regard to crimes committed abroad, the rule of the 'double criminality' of an act applies. This means that law enforcement bodies may conduct criminal proceedings only with respect to acts that constitute a crime both in Poland and in the country in which they were committed. Polish citizens are liable for crimes committed abroad in all instances where an act constitutes an offence under Polish law and at the place it was committed. As regards foreigners' liability for acts committed abroad, Polish criminal law may be applied if a crime harms the interests of Poland, a Polish citizen or a Polish company, and at the same time the requirement of double criminality is satisfied.
The requirement of the double criminality of an act does not apply to, inter alia, a situation in which a crime harms the national security of Poland or its material economic interests, or is aimed against Polish offices or officials, nor does it apply to a situation in which financial gain (even indirectly) was derived in Poland.
ii International cooperation
Polish law enforcement bodies cooperate with the authorities of other countries. The rules and scope of cooperation vary, however, in view of the fact that in some cases of cooperation, bilateral international agreements, multilateral conventions or international organisation regulations (including primarily European Union law and its implementations, for example, regarding EU Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters or Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings) will apply with some countries. In the absence of an international agreement, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply.
The possibility of handing over a Polish citizen as part of an extradition procedure is, in principle, excluded. By way of an exception, the court may decide to extradite a Polish citizen if such a possibility follows from an international agreement ratified by Poland. An additional condition is that the crime with which the subject of the extradition procedure is charged must have been committed outside Poland, and that the act that the person is charged with must constitute a crime under Polish law, both at the time the court decision is made and at the time the crime was committed.
Polish enforcement authorities routinely cooperate with the authorities of a significant number of countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom, mainly as a result of the large Polish populations in those countries.
iii Local law considerations
Enforcement authorities apply the relevant Polish standards in all kinds of proceedings conducted in Poland. The personal data protection regime and the bank secrecy regime are relatively strict and involvement of a foreign element in a given case does not lead to the relevant requirements being loosened in any manner.
Year in review
The year 2020 was different from any other prior year because of the restrictions and limitations imposed by the government to fight the covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, the courts limited the number of cases under review by cancelling the vast majority of public hearings during the pandemic. Similarly, law enforcement also saw limited action being taken. During the pandemic, the government introduced numerous anti-crisis measures to deal with the new reality. These protective measures were introduced through provisions in various fields of law, as well as criminal provisions, which prompted much discussion.
At the end of June 2020, the government introduced the Act known as Shield 4.03 to tackle the pandemic. Shield 4.0 provided some amendments to the Criminal Code, the most widely discussed of which has been the amendment changing the rules on the penalty of imprisonment for offences punishable for a maximum of eight years. In compliance with regulations resulting from Shield 4.0, amendments were made to, inter alia, regulations on cumulative penalties and regulations concerning the announcement and serving of decisions and orders. Changes have also been made to the law regarding detention and pretrial detention regulations.
As regards criminal liability for fiscal delinquency and crimes, as a result of the increase in the minimum wage, at the end of 2020, the penalty for fiscal delinquency increased to between 280 and 56,000 zlotys. The maximum fine for fiscal crime increased to 26,879,997.60 zlotys. The current government is continuing its relatively radical efforts to eradicate widespread value added tax (VAT) fraud and other kinds of business and fiscal crime. In 2020, the Ministry of Justice prepared an amendment to the Penal and Fiscal Code, which included changes regarding active repentance, new rules for mandate proceedings and changes to daily rates. This amendment entered into force in part in May 2021, with another part planned to come into force in July 2021.
In January 2019, the government published its latest draft of the Act on the Liability of Collective Entities for Acts Prohibited under Penalty. Work on the draft was stopped at the end of the parliamentary term in November 2019. At the end of August 2020, the Ministry of Justice announced resumption of work on the draft Act. Unofficially, the new Act will be limited in its initial phase to large entrepreneurs and its key purpose is to enhance the effectiveness of efforts to fight and prevent serious economic and tax crime, including corruption. Based on the previous draft, the solutions offered by the new Act may include more extensive liability, new obligations for collective entities (such as obligations regarding whistle-blowers, compliance and internal issues) and stricter sanctions. The most important changes may concern: (1) the lack of a definitive list of criminal offences liability for which may be incurred by collective entities; and (2) the option to hold a collective entity liable without a natural person having been previously convicted by a valid court judgment.
In May 2020, the Ministry of Justice announced that it is working on new provisions on preventive confiscation. The new law was supposed to allow the possibility of taking over assets (real estate, cars, money, etc.) belonging to suspects accused of acting as part of an organised criminal group in the past five years. The Council for Entrepreneurship in Poland has opposed the idea of preventive confiscation as constituting excessive interference with private property rights. Currently, because of lack of official communication, the work on preventive confiscation seems to have stopped; however, if the topic resurfaces, it will doubtless be the subject of much public debate.
Another legislative tendency observed in 2019 and that continued in 2020 relates to whistle-blowing. A draft Act on Amending the Law on Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism and Certain Other Laws, dated 27 February 2020, has been published on the website of the Government Legislation Centre. At the end of February 2021, the Polish parliament passed an amendment to this Act with the purpose of implementing the provisions of the EU's Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.4
In addition to the requirements currently in force, the amendment provides the obligation to specify procedural protections for whistle-blowers. The Act also introduces an obligation to keep the identity of whistle-blowers confidential
Conclusions and outlook
As in recent years, the general outlook is that the government is ready to increase the effectiveness of preventing and combating serious economic and fiscal crimes, including corruption offences. This objective is to be achieved through increasing the scope of liability, imposing new obligations, introducing more severe sanctions and speeding up criminal procedures. Currently, Poland must also implement by 17 December 2021 the EU Whistleblower Directive, which includes plenty of requirements regarding whistle-blowers. The new rules are going to be applied very widely. Pursuant to the provisions of the Directive, all enterprises with 50 or more workers should be subject to the obligation to establish internal reporting channels, irrespective of the nature of their activities.
In addition, the year 2021 will still be influenced by the ongoing fight against the coronavirus pandemic and the government is placing great emphasis on the constant challenges presented by covid-19 and the related economic crisis. There is no doubt that this situation is a long-term issue and it is going to continue to have a big impact on the course of criminal investigations throughout this year.
1 Tomasz Konopka and Katarzyna Randzio-Sajkowska are partners at Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak.
2 Directive 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.
3 Act on Interest Subsidies for Bank Loans Granted to Entrepreneurs Affected by Covid-19 and on Simplified Proceedings for the Approval of Arrangements in Connection with the Occurrence Of Covid-19, Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1086 – known as Shield 4.0.
4 Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering or terrorist financing and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU.