POLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Michał Wołoszański, Łukasz Kudela and Marta Solarska-Kaleńczuk, Wołoszański & Partners
work for crypto-asset service providers from 1 January 2026, with the first information exchanges scheduled to take place in 2027. In parallel, the EU AML pack- age adopted in 2024 – including the establishment of the new Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) – is in the process of being operationalised, and CASPs of cross-border significance will come within AMLA’s direct supervisory remit when the regime is fully in effect. Pathways to Compliance: A Practical Outlook What firms can do today The principal practical message for firms operating in or into the Polish market is that the European regu- latory framework already provides the substantive content of what compliance will require, and that the Polish implementing legislation – when it comes – will not substantially modify the bulk of those require - ments. Firms can therefore make meaningful prepa- ration now, even before the implementing act enters into force. The preparation that matters is, in essence, MiCA preparation. The preparatory steps that yield value irrespective of when the Polish implementing legislation enters into force are well-defined. They include: • developing internal policies and procedures aligned with MiCA’s governance, client-asset safekeep- ing, conflict-of-interest, complaints-handling and outsourcing requirements; • documenting prudential safeguarding arrange- ments and the calculation methodology for capital requirements against intended services; • preparing AML/CFT policies and designating an AML officer in a manner consistent with the EU AML package; • preparing the technical and organisational frame- work for compliance with the Transfer of Funds Regulation; and • documenting the orderly wind-down plan required of CASPs under MiCA. The critical point is that this preparation cannot be merely illusory or limited to “paper compliance”. Supervisors will, in practice, expect to see that opera- tional activities have been aligned with documented procedures. Once the Polish implementing act enters
into force, these materials will be submitted as part of the relevant authorisation process; firms that have built the underlying operational infrastructure during the transitional period will be in a materially better position than those that have not. Strategic considerations Firms also need to decide where to seek authorisa- tion. For some Polish-led operators, the answer will be Poland, on the assumption that the implementing legislation enters into force in time to permit domes- tic applications before commercial pressure forces a decision. For others, the answer has been – and will continue to be – authorisation in another EU member state, with subsequent passporting into Poland and other markets. The choice depends on a complex matrix of factors including substance, tax position, banking-relationship considerations, talent location and the firm’s existing footprint. Where firms decide on authorisation in another mem- ber state, the key constraint to remember is that the MiCA passport is not a substitute for the substance requirements that apply at the home-state level. Reverse solicitation is available under Article 61 of MiCA, but it is narrowly construed by ESMA and is not a viable structural market-entry strategy. Firms intend- ing to operate into Poland must either passport in or, in the case of third-country firms, accept the narrow factual confines of the reverse-solicitation exemption. Resolution through dialogue The legal issues that have driven the successive vetoes are not, in themselves, insurmountable. Resolving them requires consensus between the political camps of the President and the government, which in turn requires constructive dialogue and a willingness to consider amendments – particularly in the area of supervisory powers. Practical adjust- ments to the calibration of supervisory fees, or clearer allocations of competences between authorities with respect to blocking accounts or suspending crypto- asset transactions, should not constitute fundamental barriers to implementation. The substantive regulatory concept underlying the bill is broadly settled; what remains is the political work of agreeing the imple- mentation details.
503 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook