POLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Wojciech Ługowski, Lawarton Lugowski Kapica Spolka Komandytowa
2.13 Conjunction of Unregulated and Regulated Products and Services Operating regulated and unregulated activities in parallel is generally permitted, provided all legal and regulatory requirements are met. Supervi - sory authorities accept this model, provided that the unregulated activity does not compromise the regulated business’s integrity, stability or compliance. Firms must ensure clear govern - ance structures, risk management frameworks and regulatory separation where necessary to prevent conflicts and maintain compliance. 2.14 Impact of AML and Sanctions Rules The obligation to comply with AML/CFT regu - lations does not depend on whether a fintech company is regulated or unregulated. Regula - tory classification is determined by other legal frameworks, while AML obligations arise from the nature of the activities performed rather than the regulatory status of the entity. AML and sanctions rules heavily impact fintech companies, requiring them to implement strict customer due diligence, transaction monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Strict compliance measures increase operational costs, requir - ing investment in compliance teams and auto - mated monitoring systems. Fintech firms must also adapt to evolving regulatory requirements, including expanding lists of sanctioned entities and changes in risk assessment methodologies. 2.15 Financial Action Task Force Standards Poland follows the AML and CFT standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Polish AML legislation is aligned with FATF recommen - dations and shaped by EU directives, ensuring compliance with international best practices.
Additionally, Poland is subject to Moneyval eval - uations, a Council of Europe mechanism that assesses AML/CFT measures in certain Euro - pean jurisdictions. Recent evaluations indicate that Poland is progressively strengthening its AML framework, incorporating FATF recommen - dations to enhance financial security and tackle illicit financial activities. 2.16 Reverse Solicitation It is possible to provide regulated fintech prod - ucts or services from another jurisdiction on a reverse solicitation basis, but only under nar - row and strictly defined conditions. In essence, domestic regulatory licensing requirements may not be triggered if a Polish client independently initiates contact for a specific service and the provider has not engaged in any marketing or other solicitations targeting Poland. However, the relationship must be solely initiated by the Polish client. The fintech company must be able to document and prove that the client contacted them of their own accord, without any prior proactive outreach by the provider. The precise application of reverse solicitation can vary depending on the type of fintech product or service, such as those falling under MiFID II regulations for investment services or other spe - cific regimes (for instance, payment services or crypto-related activities). Although regulations on reverse solicitation are relatively clear, market practice shows that many foreign entities violate these requirements, oper - ating in ways that contradict regulatory restric - tions. This is not just a challenge in Poland but across the whole of the EU, where enforcement remains difficult. Ensuring compliance is particularly complex due to the digital nature of service offerings, allow -
654 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook