We explain when a fiscal offence carries a risk of imprisonment, what the fiscal criminal liability of the management board involves, and why Poland’s frequently changing tax law increases that risk.
spis treści
- Can you go to prison for a fiscal offence?
- A fine and an entry in the criminal register – is this still the norm?
- How high is the fine for a fiscal offence in 2026 and 2027?
- From what amount is there a risk of an entry in the KRK?
- Who is liable for a fiscal offence – the company or the management board?
- Can the company pay the fine on behalf of a management board member?
- Why does Polish tax law increase the risk of fiscal criminal liability?
- What does this judgment mean for foreign owners of Polish companies?
- How can the management board reduce its fiscal criminal liability risk?
Can you go to prison for a fiscal offence?
Yes – and it is not merely a theoretical possibility. On 8 September 2026, the National Revenue Administration (KAS) announced a judgment in which the court sentenced a taxpayer to 3 years’ unconditional imprisonment and a fine. The preparatory proceedings were conducted, under the supervision of a prosecutor, by the Head of the Pomeranian Customs and Tax Office in Gdynia.
The case concerned the years 2019–2020. The perpetrator entered invoices in the records which – as the court established – were not backed by real transactions, and used them in VAT returns. In total, 354 invoices were involved, with a net value of over PLN 7.88 million, and the VAT understatement exceeded PLN 1.81 million. The court also found that the perpetrator had made the commission of offences a regular source of income.
A fine and an entry in the criminal register – is this still the norm?
In business practice, there is a widespread belief that a fiscal criminal case usually ends with a fine, possibly a suspended sentence, and an entry in the National Criminal Register (KRK). Data from the Ministry of Justice confirm this – but they also show a clear trend. In 2008, out of 4,512 persons finally convicted of fiscal offences, unconditional imprisonment was imposed on 57 (1.3%). In 2020, the figure was already 276 out of 7,208 convicted persons (3.8%), and a year earlier 347 (3.6%). Among those sentenced to imprisonment, the share of unsuspended sentences rose over this period from 16% to 37%. Sentences of 3 years or more nevertheless remain rare – in 2020 they were imposed without suspension on 10 persons, and in 2019 on 18.
This trend should be viewed together with several rules that increase the risk of an unconditional sentence:
- the court may conditionally suspend a sentence of imprisonment only if it does not exceed one year (Article 69 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 20 § 2 of the Fiscal Penal Code, FPC) – a 3-year sentence therefore, by definition, means serving time in prison;
- where the amount of the understatement is large, or where the offences are the perpetrator’s regular source of income, the court must apply an extraordinary aggravation of the penalty (Article 37 of the FPC) – in which case imprisonment for a fiscal offence may reach as much as 10 years, and 15 years in the case of an aggregate sentence;
- the judgment may be made public, which for individuals and companies also means a serious reputational risk.
How high is the fine for a fiscal offence in 2026 and 2027?
The amounts under the FPC depend on the minimum wage, which is PLN 4,806 in 2026 and PLN 4,950 in 2027, in combination with the tax understated or exposed to understatement. The key thresholds:
- up to PLN 24,030 (2027: PLN 24,750) it is a fiscal petty offence: a fine of up to PLN 96,120 (PLN 99,000) and no entry in the KRK;
- above this threshold a fiscal offence begins: a fine of up to PLN 46.1 million (PLN 47.5 million) and an entry in the KRK;
- above PLN 961,200 (PLN 990,000), tax evasion and tax fraud are also punishable by imprisonment;
- above PLN 4.8 million (PLN 4.95 million), the court must apply an extraordinary aggravation of the penalty – up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
From what amount is there a risk of an entry in the KRK?
Every conviction for a fiscal offence, even to a fine alone, is entered in the KRK (Article 1(2)(1) of the National Criminal Register Act). The exception is voluntary submission to liability (Article 18 § 2 of the FPC). However, it is available only for acts punishable exclusively by a fine, i.e. in practice up to the ‘small value’ threshold – PLN 961,200 (PLN 990,000). Above that threshold, a conviction means a mandatory entry.
Who is liable for a fiscal offence – the company or the management board?
This is a key point: fiscal criminal liability is borne exclusively by natural persons. Under Article 9 § 3 of the FPC, liability as a
perpetrator is borne by anyone who, on the basis of a legal provision, a decision, an agreement or de facto performance, handles the business affairs – in particular the financial affairs – of the taxpayer. In practice, these are management board members, finance directors and chief accountants, and sometimes also people at the group’s headquarters who actually decide on the Polish company’s tax settlements. The company itself may be held subsidiarily liable for the fine imposed on these persons.
Can the company pay the fine on behalf of a management board member?
No. The court imposes the fine on a natural person, and that person must pay it from their own assets. Payment on behalf of the convicted person by the company (or by any other person outside the circle of closest relatives) is a petty offence (Article 57 § 1(2) of the Code of Petty Offences), unless the court holds the company subsidiarily liable (Article 24 of the FPC). Legal commentators accept, however, that subsequent reimbursement of a fine already paid by the convicted person is permissible – but such a decision requires careful consideration of its corporate and tax consequences.
Why does Polish tax law increase the risk of fiscal criminal liability?
The Gdynia case involved fictitious invoices – a classic fraud, not a dispute over the interpretation of the law. In Polish reality, however, the path from a tax dispute to fiscal criminal proceedings can be short. Several factors contribute to this:
- frequent and far-reaching changes in legislation;
- divergent interpretations and case law;
- the practice of initiating fiscal criminal proceedings in parallel with tax audits, among other things in order to suspend the running of the limitation period for the tax liability (Article 70 § 6(1) of the Tax Ordinance);
- the construction of guilt – most fiscal offences require intent, but eventual intent (dolus eventualis) is sufficient, i.e. accepting that the tax settlement may be incorrect. Where the rules are unclear, the dispute may come down to whether we knew the risk and accepted it – and this is determined by evidence, documentation and the way decisions were made.
important
In Poland, the line between a tax dispute and a fiscal criminal case can be thin. Fiscal criminal proceedings are not brought against the company but against specific individuals – management board members, finance directors, accountants – and they may result not only in a fine but also in unconditional imprisonment.
What does this judgment mean for foreign owners of Polish companies?
For a group’s headquarters, a Polish company is often one of many locations, and tax is an area delegated to the local team. Meanwhile, the Polish management board and finance director, by signing tax returns, take on a personal criminal risk in a system subject to frequent and significant changes. That is why tax decisions imposed at group level (e.g. intra-group settlement models or the choice of counterparties) should be documented and analysed in Poland, and the local tax function should be given resources commensurate with the scale of the risk.
How can the management board reduce its fiscal criminal liability risk?
- Clearly define who in the company and in the group is responsible for tax settlements, and document this allocation.
- Document due diligence – counterparty verification, the basis for tax decisions, consultations with advisers.
- In ambiguous matters, use individual tax rulings or tax opinions, which help demonstrate good faith.
- React quickly once an error is detected – a corrected tax return with a justification (Article 16a of the FPC) or active repentance (Article 16 of the FPC), filed at the right time and combined with prompt payment of the tax, may exclude criminal liability.
- From the first day of a tax audit or verification activities, use specialist support – the first explanations often determine the further course of the case.
| Situation | 2026 (MW PLN 4,806) | 2027 (MW PLN 4,950) | Penalty / consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fiscal petty offence (up to 5× MW) | up to PLN 24,030 | up to PLN 24,750 | Fine in a fixed amount: PLN 480.60–96,120 (2027: PLN 495–99,000). No entry in the KRK. |
| Fiscal offence (above 5× MW) | above PLN 24,030 | above PLN 24,750 | Fine of 10–720 daily rates; daily rate PLN 160.20–64,080 (2027: PLN 165–66,000); max. PLN 46,137,600 (2027: PLN 47,520,000). Conviction = entry in the KRK. |
| Small value (up to 200× MW) | up to PLN 961,200 | up to PLN 990,000 | Inter alia Article 54 § 2 and Article 56 § 2 of the FPC – fine only. Voluntary submission to liability possible – no entry in the KRK (Article 18 § 2 of the FPC). |
| Above small value | above PLN 961,200 | above PLN 990,000 | Fine and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years. Voluntary submission to liability excluded – a conviction means a mandatory entry in the KRK (Article 1(2)(1) of the National Criminal Register Act). |
| Large value (above 1,000× MW) | above PLN 4,806,000 | above PLN 4,950,000 | Mandatory extraordinary aggravation: up to 10 years' imprisonment; fine of up to 1,080 daily rates, i.e. PLN 69,206,400 (2027: PLN 71,280,000). |
The Gdynia judgment concerns fraud, not an error in a tax settlement – but it is a clear signal that imprisonment for a fiscal offence in Poland is not merely a theoretical threat. In my view, management boards and finance directors of Polish companies should pass this signal on to their owners directly: the fiscal criminal liability of the management board is personal, and investing in well-organised tax processes and documenting decisions is real protection for the people who sign tax returns on behalf of the group.
