POLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Michał Wołoszański, Łukasz Kudela and Marta Solarska-Kaleńczuk, Wołoszański & Partners
Market consequences In the absence of new national legislation, it is difficult to speak of genuine domestic market development. The sector is, instead, experiencing a period of stag- nation accompanied by a generalised expectation of a regulatory breakthrough. Investors are gradually losing patience and are increasingly choosing jurisdictions that offer greater legal certainty. From the perspective of new market entrants, the indefinite wait for clarity on the future shape of Polish crypto-asset regulation, and on the approach that supervisory authorities will ultimately adopt, carries significant risk. The KNF position of February 2026 confirmed the prac- tical contours of the transitional period in the absence of a designated competent authority for crypto-asset supervision. Polish supervisors continue to engage with the European Banking Authority and European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) on cross- border matters, but the absence of domestic authori- sation infrastructure is, in itself, a limitation. Several Polish banks have continued to apply conservative AML-driven policies to crypto-asset business clients, citing both the legacy supervisory environment and uncertainty about future Polish requirements. EU-level developments still apply For tokenised assets and stablecoins, the practical position is shaped by the application of MiCA itself, supplemented by EU-level technical standards and guidance. EU-authorised issuers of e-money tokens are accessible to Polish clients through MiCA-author- ised CASPs operating into Poland by way of the pass- porting mechanism. Stablecoins that do not satisfy MiCA’s authorisation and reserve requirements have, in line with the EU-wide pattern, become unavailable on regulated venues. For tokenised financial instru- ments, the Polish framework introduced in the Act on the Development of the Financial Market of 16 August 2023, which created the distributed ledger technol- ogy (DLT)-account concept, continues to apply on a technology-neutral basis alongside the existing secu- rities-law regime. Two further EU-driven workstreams reshape the oper- ational environment irrespective of the Polish imple- menting position. The transposition of DAC8 (Council Directive 2023/2226) introduces a reporting frame-
date, MiCA applied directly, but Poland still lacked the domestic supervisory and enforcement architec- ture needed to make CASP authorisation and super- vision operational in practice. Under that regime, vir- tual-currency businesses in Poland were subject to AML registration and the supervision of the General Inspector of Financial Information (GIIF), but not to the prudential, governance, client-asset segregation, conduct-of-business and orderly wind-down require- ments that MiCA introduces for authorised CASPs. The case for accelerating the MiCA implementation in Poland has, in this respect, been strengthened – though the political question of how aggressive the implementing regime should be remains contested. The current regulatory landscape in Poland is not a return to the pre-MiCA position. MiCA applies directly, but Poland still lacks the domestic institutional and enforcement layer needed to make authorisation and supervision fully operational. The MiCA transitional regime allows entities lawfully providing crypto-asset services under national law before 30 December 2024 to continue doing so until 1 July 2026, or until they receive – or are refused – a CASP authorisation. New entries to the Polish Register of Activity in the Field of Virtual Currencies, maintained by the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber in Katowice, have not been possible since 30 December 2024. In practice, crypto-asset activity in Poland is currently regulated primarily by AML/CFT legislation, complemented by general tax law and the application of MiCA itself to the extent that it has direct effect. Operating in Transitional Limbo The position of legacy operators For domestic providers, this situation is operation- ally constrained. They are not currently able to apply for CASP authorisation under MiCA in Poland, and given that MiCA is now fully applicable in many mem- ber states, they are limited in their ability to provide cross-border services. In many of those jurisdictions, crypto-asset services may be provided only by enti- ties that hold CASP status in another member state and have notified the relevant supervisory authorities. The MiCA passport, accessible through authorisation in another member state, has therefore become the practical route for Polish-led firms wishing to maintain a credible cross-border presence in 2025 and 2026.
502 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook