Civil or Criminal? The Old Question in a New Era of Fraud

In Poland, the answer is often both: fraud should be pursued as a civil claim and as a criminal matter, because each route serves a different purpose and unlocks different tools. In practice, the “age-old question” is less about choosing one lane and more about sequencing them strategically around evidence, asset tracing, and recovery. It matters especially in the case of cross-border frauds which are growing fast.
 
Why civil is not enough
 
Civil proceedings are designed to recover money or assets from a defendant, but in Poland they are procedurally limited when it comes to pre-action disclosure and evidence gathering. A claimant usually cannot expect broad discovery, search-type measures, or early access to hard-to-reach evidence before filing suit. But even after a civil suit is filed, disclosure duties in Poland remain narrow: courts can order the production of specific, existing documents, but cannot compel broad discovery, searches, or the creation of new evidence.
 
That matters in fraud cases because the victim often does not know where the money went, who holds the documents, or how the scheme was structured. Without strong evidence and a traceable asset path, a civil claim can become slow, expensive, and strategically weak.
 
Why criminal is often essential
 
Criminal proceedings in Poland give the public prosecutor much broader powers, including access to evidence that is difficult to obtain in civil proceedings, such as banking, tax, and telecom data, as well as the ability to conduct searches and seizures. They can also create leverage for asset preservation and settlement, because the threat of prosecution changes the defendant’s incentives.
For fraud victims, the practical advantage is access to the criminal case file and the ability to use lawfully obtained evidence later in civil proceedings, subject to confidentiality and fairness limits. This makes the criminal route not only punitive, but also evidentially useful.
 
In Polish criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor can:
 

• obtain evidence covered by banking, tax, and telecom secrecy, as well as data analyzed by the General Inspector of Financial Information;
• hear witnesses at an early stage and enable the use of their testimony in subsequent civil proceedings, including abroad. This is because the victim has access to most of the case file and can lawfully use that material, subject to procedural limits;
• seize personal assets once charges are brought against individuals involved in the fraud, which is virtually impossible in civil proceedings;
• oblige the offender to redress the damage caused to the victim.

 
The strategic answer
 
For most fraud matters in Poland, the strongest approach is a parallel track: submit a criminal complaint early to secure evidence and pressure, while preparing or advancing the civil claim to recover assets and enforce liability. Polish law does not generally prohibit parallel criminal and civil proceedings, and this combination can improve both evidence gathering and recovery prospects.
 
That said, the order and framing matter. A criminal complaint should be drafted simply and concretely, focusing on the suspicious conduct and evidentiary leads, while the civil case should be built around precise claims, clearly identified defendants, and traceable assets.
 
What changed in the new era of fraud
 
Modern fraud in Poland is increasingly cross-border, document-light, and digitally mediated, making traditional civil litigation alone less effective. Assets are often layered through entities and accounts across multiple jurisdictions, so early asset tracing and the coordinated use of civil and criminal tools have become more important than ever.
 
For this reason, fraud victims need a forensic mindset from the outset: identify the fraud theory (i.e. a working hypothesis that explains how the fraud was committed, by whom, why, and through which mechanisms). secure evidence, trace assets, and determine which forum offers the greatest practical advantage at each stage. The key question is no longer “civil or criminal,” but rather “which combination of tools will recover the assets most efficiently.”