Success in a white-collar criminal case – acquittal of charges of causing damage in business transactions.

We represented the Client from the pre-trial investigation stage, consistently challenging the grounds for the charges brought against the Client from the outset and pointing out irregularities in the assessment of the evidence collected.

Why is this case significant?

Disputes arising from long-standing business relationships often extend beyond the civil or corporate sphere and may subsequently become the subject of criminal proceedings. Such disputes typically concern the manner in which business activities were conducted, financing arrangements, business decisions made, and financial settlements between the parties.

As a conflict escalates, the same events that previously formed part of an ongoing business relationship may begin to be presented as actions allegedly intended to cause financial loss.

In such cases, it is therefore crucial to distinguish a genuine business dispute from circumstances that may give rise to criminal liability, as well as to conduct a detailed analysis of the economic context of the actions in question and the actual course of financial settlements between the parties.

Facts of the case

At the pre-trial investigation stage, the Client was charged with broadly defined irregularities concerning settlements carried out as part of a joint business venture. The charges included, among other things, causing multi-million-zloty damage and improperly disposing of funds connected with the business activity.

From the outset, the defence consistently challenged both the factual basis of the charges and the method used to calculate the alleged damage, as well as the interpretation of the financial flows.

Ultimately, the indictment was brought within a significantly narrower scope and concerned only one element of the original charges – the legitimacy of certain costs incurred in connection with the operation of the business and their impact on the financial position of the other party.

At the trial stage, a detailed analysis of the financial documentation, the actual nature of the settlements, and the economic rationale behind the disputed expenses was therefore of key importance.

Defence strategy

The defence strategy was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, particularly the financial documentation, as well as active evidentiary initiatives.

In the course of the proceedings, we:

• participated in witness examinations and secured the examination of additional individuals possessing relevant knowledge of the operation of the business;
• submitted expert analyses addressing key issues in the case;
• successfully challenged the initial expert opinion, resulting in the preparation of a supplementary expert opinion;
• demonstrated the economic rationale behind the disputed costs and their connection with the business activity;
• identified inconsistencies between the statements of the notifying party and the other evidence collected in the case.

Challenging the expert opinion was of particular importance, as it constituted one of the key pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution. As a result of the defence’s actions, a supplementary expert opinion was prepared, which became one of the significant elements of the evidence supporting the Client’s position.

The result? The Client was acquitted.

The proceedings did not provide sufficient grounds to establish the Client’s criminal liability in respect of the conduct covered by the indictment. The Court found that the costs incurred by the company in connection with the use of premises for business purposes were economically justified and consistent with generally accepted principles of conducting business activities.

Key takeaway

In proceedings concerning offences against business transactions, it is crucial to distinguish a dispute between shareholders from the prerequisites for criminal liability. A corporate conflict, as well as differing assessments of business decisions or financial settlements, cannot in itself constitute sufficient grounds for establishing criminal liability. It is necessary to demonstrate the actual occurrence of damage, its amount, and a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting loss, with these findings being supported by complete and consistent evidence.

In such cases, financial evidence is of particular importance, including expert opinions, which often determine the direction of factual findings. At the same time, expert opinions cannot replace a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the case, particularly where the remaining evidence reveals significant inconsistencies.

The case also demonstrates the importance of the defence’s active involvement in the evidentiary proceedings – including the verification of financial documentation, initiating witness evidence, and conducting a detailed analysis of and challenging expert opinions.

The case was handled by:

Agata Wiśniewska – Managing Associate, Advocate
Kacper Siudut – Advocate