{"id":2864,"date":"2026-10-26T12:20:25","date_gmt":"2026-10-26T12:20:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/?p=2864"},"modified":"2026-10-26T12:20:25","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T12:20:25","slug":"poland-aml-compliance-five-step-check","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/poland-aml-compliance-five-step-check\/","title":{"rendered":"Poland AML Compliance: Five Steps to Check Whether Your Procedures Work"},"content":{"rendered":"

The worst anti-money laundering (AML) position is not having no procedure. It is having a written procedure that nobody follows. The document shows that your company knew what it was supposed to do, while its records may show that it did not do it.<\/p>\n

Consider a business in Poland that accepts cash for high-value goods such as vehicles, machinery or equipment. It implemented an AML procedure<\/a> two years ago, but since then nobody has monitored transactions, completed customer identification forms or submitted reports to Poland\u2019s General Inspector of Financial Information (Generalny Inspektor Informacji Finansowej<\/em>, or GIIF<\/strong>). That is a real compliance problem, not simply an outdated document.<\/p>\n

Poland\u2019s Act of March 1, 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (the AML Act<\/strong>) places duties on obliged institutions<\/a>, including businesses accepting cash for goods worth at least EUR 10,000. These duties include reporting qualifying above-threshold transactions<\/strong> to the GIIF within seven days. Penalties can affect both the business and the person responsible for AML.<\/p>\n

Here is how to check, in five steps, whether your Polish AML system works before the GIIF checks it.<\/p>\n

Key Polish AML terms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Term<\/th>\nWhat it means for your business<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Obliged institution<\/strong><\/td>\nA business required by the Polish AML Act to apply AML procedures. Vehicle dealers, used-vehicle dealers and other traders accepting cash for goods worth at least EUR 10,000 fall within this category, even if such a transaction occurs only once a year.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Above-threshold transaction<\/strong><\/td>\nAn operation, such as a deposit, withdrawal or transfer, worth at least EUR 15,000 that must be reported to the GIIF within seven days of being carried out. The application of this reporting threshold to linked payments raises the interpretive issue discussed below.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Customer due diligence (CDD)<\/strong><\/td>\nMeasures for identifying and checking a customer, including identity verification, politically exposed person (PEP<\/strong>) checks, sanctions screening and identification of the beneficial owner, the person who ultimately controls an entity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GIIF<\/strong><\/td>\nThe General Inspector of Financial Information, the Polish authority that receives transaction reports and monitors compliance with AML requirements.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AMLRO<\/strong><\/td>\nThe person formally designated to be responsible for AML within the business, with documented responsibilities.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EUR 10,000 threshold<\/strong><\/td>\nThe value of an occasional cash transaction at which a trader in goods becomes an obliged institution and must apply CDD measures.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Three common gaps after an AML procedure is introduced<\/h2>\n

Many businesses with an AML problem have a procedure, sometimes a well-written one. The difficulty is that it stays in a binder while cash transactions pass through the business without the required checks or records.<\/p>\n

1. No reports to the GIIF<\/h3>\n

Cash transactions above EUR 15,000 were not reported. Sales staff did not know reporting was required, accounting did not monitor payment values, and nobody checked whether a threshold had been crossed.<\/p>\n

Failure to submit a required notification can lead to an administrative penalty. Article 156 of the AML Act also provides for imprisonment of three months to five years for failure to notify the GIIF. The applicable administrative penalty ceiling depends on the type of obliged institution:<\/strong> the higher ceiling of the equivalent of EUR 5 million or 10% of annual turnover concerns financial institutions, as set out in the penalty table below.<\/p>\n

2. Nobody was formally designated to manage AML<\/h3>\n

An owner may have informally asked \u201csomeone in the office\u201d to handle AML without defining the role or documenting the appointment. During an inspection, it may then be unclear who was responsible for a particular failure.<\/p>\n

Under Article 154 of the AML Act, a penalty of up to PLN 1,000,000<\/strong> may be imposed on the person responsible for performing AML duties when the breach occurred. If nobody was formally designated, responsibility may fall on a management board member.<\/p>\n

3. Customer identification forms are not used<\/h3>\n

The company has PEP forms and customer declarations, but sales staff leave them blank. Registers are empty, sanctions checks were not performed, and beneficial owners were not identified.<\/p>\n

GIIF Announcement No. 31 expressly identifies as unacceptable the practice of having an AML procedure but not applying CDD measures to customers whose transactions are inconsistent with their established profile.<\/p>\n

The EUR 15,000 threshold: Why linked payments matter<\/h2>\n

When aggregation is required<\/h3>\n

A common mistake is to assess only each individual payment. Article 35 and Article 2(1)(21)-(23) of the AML Act refer to transactions conducted either as a single operation or as several operations that appear to be linked. Aggregation is therefore important when assessing CDD duties. Whether and how linked payments must be aggregated for above-threshold reporting under Article 72 is less clear.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Scenario<\/th>\nTreatment of linked payments<\/th>\nLegal basis<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
A customer pays for one vehicle in three EUR 6,000 cash installments: EUR 18,000 in total.<\/td>\nAggregate the payments for CDD purposes.<\/td>\nArticle 35<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A customer buys two vehicles under one agreement for EUR 20,000, paid in cash.<\/td>\nApply CDD and report to the GIIF.<\/td>\nArticles 35 and 72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A customer pays EUR 8,000 in cash and EUR 12,000 by bank transfer for one vehicle.<\/td>\nApply CDD because the total agreement value exceeds EUR 15,000. For above-threshold reporting, neither individual operation exceeds EUR 15,000; Article 72 leaves an interpretive gap.<\/td>\nArticle 35; interpretive gap under Article 72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A customer buys three vehicles under separate agreements within a month, each below EUR 15,000.<\/td>\nOn a literal reading, the purchases are not subject to above-threshold reporting, but they may warrant treatment as suspicious transactions.<\/td>\nArticle 74<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The Article 72 interpretive gap<\/h3>\n

Article 72, the provision governing above-threshold reporting, does not expressly say<\/strong> that linked operations must be aggregated. Poland\u2019s Supreme Audit Office (Najwy\u017csza Izba Kontroli<\/em>, or NIK<\/strong>) has identified this difference in wording as a source of interpretive uncertainty. There is no official GIIF guidance resolving whether separate installments for a vehicle must be added together for reporting purposes.<\/p>\n

For a cautious review, use the total agreement value<\/strong>, not just an individual installment, as your reference point. That is a risk-management approach, not a claim that the reporting question has been definitively settled.<\/p>\n

Five steps to test your Polish AML system<\/h2>\n

Step 1: Compile your cash transactions<\/h3>\n

Review every cash transaction since your AML procedure was implemented. Identify cases where the cash received may have exceeded EUR 15,000 in total within the relationship with a particular customer.<\/p>\n

Do not look only for a single large payment. Include:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Installments paid for one item.<\/li>\n
  2. Multiple purchases by the same customer over a short period.<\/li>\n
  3. Payments split between cash and bank transfer where the agreement\u2019s total value exceeds the threshold.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Keep the distinction between CDD<\/strong> and above-threshold reporting<\/strong> in view when assessing these cases.<\/p>\n

    Step 2: Reconcile transactions with GIIF reports<\/h3>\n

    Compare the transactions identified in your review with your register of reports submitted to the GIIF. Missing reports require attention.<\/p>\n

    Article 72(5) of the AML Act requires information on a reportable above-threshold transaction to be submitted within seven days<\/strong> of the transaction. GIIF Announcement No. 15 explains how to calculate that period.<\/p>\n

    If a deadline has passed, consult a Polish AML lawyer on how to address it before contacting the GIIF. Under Article 150(4), the authority considers the obliged institution\u2019s degree of cooperation with the competent authorities<\/strong> when determining a penalty. Voluntary disclosure may mitigate the outcome, but it does not guarantee that sanctions will be avoided.<\/p>\n

    Step 3: Document who is responsible for AML<\/h3>\n

    Check whether your AMLRO has been formally designated and whether their responsibilities are clear. Record the appointment in a management board resolution or another internal document.<\/p>\n

    The EBA Guidelines (EBA\/GL\/2022\/05) and the position of the Office of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (UKNF<\/strong>) dated December 1, 2022, indicate that the AMLRO should:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Have direct access to the management board on AML matters.<\/li>\n
    2. Have sufficient authority and resources.<\/li>\n
    3. Be responsible for GIIF reporting, transaction monitoring and procedure updates.<\/li>\n
    4. Receive training relevant to their AML duties.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Step 4: Address missing KYC records<\/h3>\n

      Check whether the required CDD measures were applied to cash-paying customers:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Identification forms<\/a> recording customer details and identity documents.<\/li>\n
      2. PEP declarations covering the customer and relevant close associates.<\/li>\n
      3. Screening against EU, UN and national sanctions lists.<\/li>\n
      4. Identification of the beneficial owner of a purchasing entity.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        If forms were not completed, fill the gaps retrospectively where possible, and establish a process that staff will use for future transactions.<\/p>\n

        GIIF Announcement No. 22 of April 7, 2020, specifies information to include in the justification for a report, including the customer\u2019s business profile, declared transaction frequency and source of assets. It is a practical benchmark when reviewing whether your supporting documentation is sufficient.<\/p>\n

        Step 5: Make the procedure match your operations<\/h3>\n

        Your written procedure should reflect how the business actually sells goods and accepts payments. Update it if, since implementation, you have changed:<\/p>\n