The zondacrypto exchange under institutional scrutiny - background to the case
The largest cryptocurrency exchange of Polish origin - zondacrypto - has once again found itself at the centre of a media storm. On the one hand, the latest reports from "Puls Biznesu” reveal that Polish law enforcement authorities conducted multi-year proceedings against the company, which ultimately ended with the discontinuation of the investigations due to a lack of evidence that any offences had been committed. On the other hand, "Gazeta Wyborcza” described cases of clients who allegedly encountered difficulties withdrawing funds from the platform.
The case is significant not only for the cryptocurrency industry, but also for anyone who uses digital asset exchange services in Poland. It touches on fundamental legal issues: the limits of the powers of supervisory authorities, AML (anti-money laundering) procedures and consumer rights in a market that is still waiting for full regulation.
To assess the situation properly, it is worth looking at both perspectives - the institutional and the consumer one - and drawing practical legal conclusions from them for users of cryptocurrency platforms.
Discontinued investigations and the controversial actions of the UKNF - a legal analysis
According to the findings of "Puls Biznesu”, the Office of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (UKNF) submitted numerous notifications to the prosecutor's office concerning the activities of zondacrypto. As a result, investigators questioned more than 1,500 people. What is crucial from a legal perspective, however, is that the prosecutor's office successively discontinued the proceedings, finding no grounds to bring charges.
The nature of the evidence on which the UKNF's notifications were based is particularly worrying. According to media reports, the notifications were inspired, among other things, by posts on internet forums such as Wykop and bitcoin.pl, which were not supported by any evidence within the meaning of criminal procedure. During questioning, many of the alleged victims openly admitted that they did not consider themselves victims, and that the blocking of their accounts resulted from correctly applied AML procedures.
When does supervision become excessive interference?
In the Polish legal system, financial supervisory authorities have broad powers, but their actions should be proportionate and based on reliable grounds. The principle of proportionality derives from both the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and EU law. A situation in which a public institution initiates mass criminal proceedings on the basis of anonymous internet posts raises serious doubts as to whether this principle is being respected.
Representatives of zondacrypto describe these actions as deliberate pressure going beyond supervisory standards. Regardless of how one assesses those words, the fact that investigations were systematically discontinued is an important argument in this debate.
The supervisory paradox - the KNF between activity and lack of competence
A significant legal and institutional paradox has emerged around the actions of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) towards zondacrypto, and it requires detailed discussion. On the one hand, the authority actively sent notifications to the prosecutor's office and circulated enquiries about cooperation with the exchange to hundreds of ASI (Alternative Investment Companies) and TFI (Investment Fund Management Companies). On the other hand, the KNF spokesperson Jacek Barszczewski officially refused to give the media any information on possible client complaints, citing the authority's lack of jurisdiction over the supervision of cryptocurrency exchanges.
This raises a fundamental legal question: can an institution that formally does not supervise a given entity at the same time actively involve law enforcement authorities in investigating its activities? This situation illustrates the broader problem of the regulatory gap in the Polish cryptocurrency market, which in practice means that:
- Clients of cryptocurrency exchanges cannot count on KNF protection to the same extent as clients of traditional financial institutions.
- Entities operating cryptocurrency exchanges function in regulatory uncertainty, exposed to actions by institutions that are formally not responsible for them.
- The only real protection for consumers is provided by the general provisions of civil law, platform terms and conditions and forthcoming EU regulations, including the MiCA Regulation.
- Criminal proceedings initiated without a solid evidentiary basis may infringe the presumption of innocence and generate costs for the justice system.
Client complaints about withdrawals - what does the law say?
Regardless of how the institutional actions are assessed, the reports in "Gazeta Wyborcza” about problems with withdrawing funds deserve to be taken seriously from the perspective of consumer protection. According to the newspaper, some zondacrypto clients experienced withdrawal delays of several days, and transfers were made in instalments.
The exchange explained these situations as system errors and transfers between wallets. Anonymous experts quoted by "GW”, on the other hand, suggested that the problem might be the platform's high marketing expenditure - including the general sponsorship of the Polish Olympic Committee (PKOl) - during an ongoing bear market in cryptocurrencies, which in their view could have affected the company's financial liquidity.
The exchange's position and the legal context of the dispute
The CEO of zondacrypto, Przemysław Kral, firmly rejected the allegations made by "Gazeta Wyborcza". On the X.com platform he published a statement by the author of the "zonda-alert.pl” website (whose identity has been anonymised), in which the author confirmed receiving a refund. The CEO also announced a lawsuit against "Gazeta Wyborcza”, accusing the newspaper of manipulation and lies.
From a legal point of view, clients of cryptocurrency exchanges who experience problems with withdrawals have several courses of action available. They may pursue their claims under the provisions of the Civil Code on non-performance or improper performance of an obligation. It is also important whether the platform's terms and conditions precisely specify the deadlines for processing withdrawals - if they do, a delay constitutes a breach of contract.
Conclusions for cryptocurrency exchange users in Poland
The zondacrypto case is an excellent case study illustrating the regulatory immaturity of the Polish cryptocurrency market. Both individual investors and businesses operating in the digital asset sector should draw practical conclusions from it.
First, every user of a cryptocurrency exchange should read the platform's terms and conditions carefully, in particular the provisions on AML procedures, withdrawal deadlines and the rules for blocking accounts. As the zondacrypto case shows, many alleged victims admitted that they were not aware of the rules they had agreed to.
Second, if you have real problems withdrawing funds, it is not worth waiting - professional legal assistance at an early stage of the dispute significantly increases the chances of a quick and favourable resolution. Documenting all correspondence with the platform, screenshots and transaction confirmations provides key evidence.
Third, the entry into force of the MiCA Regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets) in the European Union will change the regulatory landscape. Cryptocurrency exchanges will be subject to clear licensing and supervisory requirements, which should eliminate the KNF competence paradox described above.
If you are experiencing problems with a cryptocurrency exchange, your account has been blocked or you have difficulty withdrawing funds - contact our firm. Our lawyers specialising in new technology law and consumer protection will help you assess your legal position and effectively pursue your claims.
Have a question about this?
The first consultation is free - let us talk about your situation.
