Operating an exchange without the right disclosure mechanism can mean losing recoverable funds forever. When crypto fraud strikes a business operating across borders – with funds routed through a Polish exchange, layered across wallets, and cashed out in a third country – the legal question is immediate and specific: can a Polish court compel an exchange to reveal account-holder identity and transaction data before those funds move again? The answer is yes, through a combination of civil procedural tools and the emerging digital-asset legal environment in Poland. This guide walks through each step of the process, the cross-border interactions that shape the strategy, and the decision points that determine whether recovery is realistic.
What Is an Exchange Disclosure Order in Poland?
An exchange disclosure order in Poland is a court-compelled mechanism requiring a virtual asset service provider to disclose customer identity and transaction records to a claimant in civil proceedings. Polish civil procedure, under the general framework governing civil evidence and interim relief, allows a claimant to petition a court for disclosure of information held by a third party – including a financial institution or an exchange – where that information is necessary to identify a defendant or trace misappropriated assets. The legal basis sits in Poland's civil procedure rules and the country's implementation of AML obligations under EU law, which require exchanges operating in Poland to maintain customer due-diligence records. Those records are the target of a disclosure application.
This is not a simple letter to an exchange. It is a formal court order, served on the exchange's registered entity, carrying the force of Polish law. An exchange that ignores or refuses to comply risks contempt consequences. In our cross-border practice, we have seen operators underestimate this route – assuming that Polish courts lack the procedural machinery for crypto disputes. That assumption is wrong and, in recovery terms, costly.
Who Needs This – and When?
Any business that has had digital assets misappropriated and can show that the proceeds passed through an exchange with a presence in Poland has a potential basis for this application. The typical claimant profile is a crypto exchange, a fund, a payments company, or a corporate treasury that has suffered theft, exit fraud, or misappropriation by a counterparty who subsequently moved funds through Polish-regulated infrastructure.
The critical threshold question is jurisdictional. Poland's AML framework – implemented under the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives – applies to exchanges that operate in Poland or that hold Polish customer records. If the exchange is registered in Poland or maintains a branch here, Polish courts have a clear basis to issue disclosure orders against it. If the exchange is foreign but holds Polish user accounts, the jurisdictional picture is more complex and requires careful analysis before filing.
Timing matters. Recovery windows for misappropriated digital assets are measured in hours, not weeks. An exchange disclosure order is most valuable when filed while the funds are still on the exchange or shortly after they have moved – because the disclosed records lead to the next exchange, where a second disclosure or freeze application can follow. Delay collapses the chain.
The process above describes the standard path. Your facts – the entity, the user base, the banking – change the analysis. If your situation involves funds that moved through Poland into a second jurisdiction, or where the exchange's registered entity sits elsewhere in the EU, the procedural route adjusts. For a scoped assessment of your recovery position, contact OBOLUS at info@oboluslaw.com.
Step One: On-Chain Tracing and Evidence Preparation
The starting point is an accurate on-chain trace – a documented record of how the funds moved from the victim's wallet to the exchange address in question. Without this, no Polish court will grant disclosure. The trace must identify specific transaction hashes, wallet addresses, the approximate timing of transfers, and the exchange deposit address linked to the target account. In our practice, we work alongside forensic partners who convert raw blockchain data into a report structured for court submission. That report is the foundation of the disclosure application.
Evidence preparation at this stage has three components. First, the technical trace – produced by a qualified blockchain analytics provider. Second, a legal memorandum identifying the Polish-connected entity, the jurisdictional basis for the application, and the relief sought. Third, an affidavit or sworn statement from the claimant setting out the factual background, the loss, and the nexus to the Polish exchange.
A common mistake at this step is treating the forensic report as self-sufficient. Courts require a legal framework around the technical evidence. A report that shows funds moved to a wallet address does not, on its own, satisfy a Polish court that the exchange should be compelled to disclose. The legal membrane around the forensic data is what makes the application work.
Step Two: Identifying the Correct Respondent Entity
Exchanges operating in Poland may be structured in several ways. Some are Polish companies registered with the relevant registry and listed with the Polish Financial Supervision Authority – the KNF (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego) – as obliged entities under Poland's AML implementation. Others operate under EU passporting rights, with their registered entity in another member state. The respondent to a Polish disclosure order must be a legal entity against which a Polish court has jurisdiction.
This step frequently determines whether the application succeeds before it is even filed. We regularly advise clients who have traced funds to a wallet address linked to an exchange that turns out to have no registered entity in Poland – only EU passported operations. In that scenario, the route may shift to the exchange's home jurisdiction or to a parallel MiCA CASP authorization inquiry. Under MiCA (the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation), CASPs authorized in one EU member state may passport services across the EU/EEA. That passporting structure means the registered entity – and the disclosure application – belongs in the home-state jurisdiction.
Entity identification is not merely a formality. Serving a disclosure application on the wrong entity wastes the clock. When funds are moving, that clock cannot be wasted.
Step Three: Filing the Disclosure Application in Poland
The disclosure application is filed with the competent Polish civil court. Polish civil procedure allows a claimant to file an application for evidentiary disclosure – wniosek o zabezpieczenie dowodów (a motion to secure evidence) – as part of or in advance of substantive proceedings. Where the claimant can demonstrate urgency and the risk that evidence will be destroyed or lost, courts may act on an expedited basis.
The application must set out the following: the identity of the claimant and the legal basis for the claim; the specific evidence sought (account-holder data, transaction records, IP logs); the respondent exchange entity and its registered details in Poland; the on-chain trace and forensic report as exhibits; and a statement of the legal basis for disclosure, connecting the exchange's AML record-keeping obligations to the claimant's right to access those records in civil proceedings.
Courts in Poland are not experienced with crypto-specific applications to the degree seen in England and Wales or Singapore. This is precisely the reason why the legal framing must be rigorous. A Polish court that is not familiar with blockchain forensics needs to understand what it is being asked to compel, why the exchange holds the relevant data, and what legal obligation requires the exchange to provide it. We have seen applications fail at this stage because the framing was generic rather than technically precise.
How Does a Polish Disclosure Order Interact With Freezing Relief?
A disclosure order and a freezing order are distinct instruments, but they work in sequence. Disclosure reveals who holds the assets and how they are structured. A freezing order – zabezpieczenie roszczenia under Polish civil procedure – prevents those assets from being moved while the substantive claim proceeds. In a well-run recovery, both applications are prepared simultaneously and filed in a coordinated sequence.
Polish courts can grant interim asset freezing as part of the civil procedure securing process. The standard for freezing relief requires the claimant to show a plausible claim and the risk that the defendant will dissipate assets if notice is given. In crypto fraud cases, that risk of dissipation is almost always self-evident – assets on an exchange can be withdrawn in minutes. Courts, when properly briefed, recognize this.
The cross-border dimension is significant. If the assets have already left Poland – say, routed from the Polish exchange to a Tether wallet on an exchange in a third country – the Polish disclosure order still has value as a link in the chain. It identifies the next wallet address. That address feeds the next disclosure application, potentially in a jurisdiction like England and Wales, Singapore, or Hong Kong, where crypto asset recovery courts are well-developed. England and Wales, in particular, is the leading forum for worldwide freezing orders and Norwich Pharmacal disclosure in crypto cases – and Polish disclosure evidence feeds directly into English proceedings.
In a recent matter, a payments company traced misappropriated stablecoins from a Central European exchange to a chain of intermediate wallets. We coordinated parallel disclosure applications in two jurisdictions simultaneously. The Polish-facing step identified the exchange account holder; a second application in a common-law forum produced a disclosure order against the downstream exchange. The funds were frozen before the second withdrawal was attempted. The interaction between jurisdictions – not the Polish step alone – produced the outcome.
If a prior application stalled or an account was closed, a second read can surface the structural reason and the route back. To discuss a stalled recovery or a new matter where funds passed through Polish infrastructure, write to OBOLUS at info@oboluslaw.com or message via t.me/oboluslaw.
What Does Poland's AML Framework Require Exchanges to Hold?
Polish exchanges are obliged entities under Poland's implementation of the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives. They must maintain customer due-diligence records – including verified identity documents, beneficial ownership data, and transaction records – for a period set by the applicable regime. These records are the core of what a disclosure order compels them to produce.
The Travel Rule (the obligation to pass originator and beneficiary data alongside a virtual-asset transfer) adds a further layer. Exchanges subject to the Travel Rule must capture and store the identity of both the sending and receiving party for transfers above the applicable threshold. Where a fraud victim can show that the misappropriated funds passed through a Polish-regulated exchange in a transaction subject to Travel Rule obligations, the exchange's records are likely to include counterparty identity data – precisely the information needed to pursue the defendant.
AML obligations, in a recovery context, are not just a compliance burden for the exchange. They are the legal architecture that makes the exchange's records available to a claimant who can demonstrate a legitimate legal basis. The link between the EU AML framework, Poland's implementing legislation, and the claimant's civil right to disclosure is the core legal argument in this type of application.
Common Mistakes – and How to Avoid Them
The most consequential mistake is delay. Every hour after a misappropriation event, the probability of a successful freeze declines. Funds move between wallets, across exchanges, and into mixers or privacy protocols. Operators who spend the first 48 hours internally deliberating – or waiting for internal sign-off on engaging external counsel – lose the window.
The second mistake is approaching the exchange directly before filing. Informal contact with an exchange – asking them to freeze an account or share data voluntarily – alerts the account holder, who may withdraw immediately. A surprise disclosure application filed without warning preserves the element of timing. In most recovery matters, the sequence is: file the application, then notify the exchange of the order once it is granted.
A third common error is underweighting the entity identification step. Claimants frequently assume that the exchange they see in their transaction records has a Polish legal entity. In practice, many exchanges operating in the Polish market are registered elsewhere in the EU and provide services under MiCA or pre-MiCA passporting. Applying in the wrong jurisdiction wastes the clock and may alert the target.
Finally – and this is a myth worth addressing directly – there is a widespread belief that once funds leave the wallet, nothing can be done. That belief is wrong. On-chain tracing can follow funds through multiple hops. Disclosure orders can be obtained in sequence across jurisdictions. Stablecoin issuers, including Tether and Circle, hold contractual authority to freeze tokens at the smart-contract level, and they generally act on court orders or law-enforcement designations. The recovery window is short, but it is real. The question is whether the response is fast enough.
Decision Framework: Is a Disclosure Order the Right Tool?
Not every crypto fraud case leads to a Polish disclosure application. The instrument is appropriate when specific conditions are met.
Profile A: The claimant has a clear on-chain trace to a specific exchange deposit address, and the exchange is registered in Poland or has a verified Polish entity. The forensic report is complete. In this profile, a disclosure application in Poland is the right first step, potentially coordinated with a simultaneous freezing application. The indicative process, from instruction to filing, can move in a matter of days where the evidence is ready. The key risk is that the exchange delays compliance or the respondent entity disputes Polish jurisdiction.
Profile B: The trace leads to an exchange that operates in Poland by EU passport, with a registered entity in another member state. Here, the disclosure application should be filed in the exchange's home jurisdiction, potentially with Polish supporting evidence. MiCA's CASP authorization structure means the home-state regulator – and the home-state court – has primary jurisdiction over the exchange entity. The risk is added timeline from operating in a foreign court with different procedural rules.
Profile C: The funds have already moved beyond the Polish exchange to downstream wallets in other jurisdictions. Here, the Polish disclosure order is still valuable – but as one step in a multi-jurisdiction sequence, not a standalone remedy. The English and Welsh courts, the DIFC Courts, and the Singapore courts all have well-developed procedures for crypto disclosure and freezing. The Polish step feeds those proceedings with identity data. Allied counsel in the relevant jurisdiction handles the downstream application.
Choosing the right instrument for the right profile is a judgment call that turns on the specific facts. We do not advise a one-size approach to crypto recovery. Every matter starts with a fast assessment of the trace, the entity, the jurisdiction, and the timeline before any application is filed.
Related at OBOLUS
- Disputes & Asset Recovery for Digital Asset Businesses – our full cross-border recovery practice, from disclosure to enforcement
- Creditor Claims in Crypto Insolvency in Switzerland – protecting your position when a counterparty platform fails
- Corporate Bank Account Opening in Estonia – structuring the banking layer for digital-asset operations in the EU
FAQ
Can stolen crypto actually be recovered?
Yes – recovery is possible, though it depends on speed, the on-chain trail, and the jurisdictions involved. Misappropriated assets can be traced through blockchain analytics. Courts in Poland, England and Wales, Singapore, and other forums can compel exchanges to disclose account-holder data and freeze balances. Stablecoin issuers hold the technical ability to freeze tokens at the smart-contract level on court order. Recovery becomes materially harder as time passes and funds move further through the chain.
How fast must I act after a digital-asset theft?
Immediately. The recovery window is measured in hours, not days. Funds on an exchange can be withdrawn in minutes once the account holder is alerted. The practical sequence is to instruct counsel, commission a forensic trace, and prepare an emergency disclosure application in parallel – not sequentially. In our practice, cases where the first legal step is taken within 24 hours consistently produce better outcomes than cases where action is delayed for internal approvals or deliberation.
Can a court freeze assets held on an exchange?
Yes. Polish civil courts can grant interim asset-freezing relief – zabezpieczenie roszczenia – requiring an exchange to hold assets in place while substantive proceedings advance. The claimant must show a plausible legal claim and the risk that assets will be dissipated. In crypto cases, dissipation risk is almost always apparent. Courts in England and Wales, Singapore, and the DIFC can similarly issue freezing orders with international reach, which can be served on exchanges operating in those jurisdictions or holding assets there.
OBOLUS is an independent digital-asset law boutique acting only for businesses. We advise exchanges, custodians, token issuers and funds on licensing across 70+ jurisdictions, on disputes and on-chain asset recovery across 25+ forums, and on the tax, banking and compliance that sit around them. Digital assets are the whole of our practice. In recovery matters, we move for freezing relief and exchange disclosure while the trail is live, working alongside forensic partners to convert on-chain evidence into court-ready applications. To discuss your situation, contact info@oboluslaw.com.
By Glen Sorensen, Disputes & Recovery Analyst – specialising in cross-border digital-asset recovery, exchange disclosure applications and multi-jurisdiction freezing relief.
This publication is general information about the law and does not constitute legal advice. It is not a substitute for advice tailored to your circumstances. OBOLUS accepts no liability for action taken or not taken on the basis of this material. For advice on your situation, contact info@oboluslaw.com.