Managing Crypto-Asset & Blockchain Disputes Before Polish Courts & Tribunals

Crypto disputes are no longer niche. Courts and tribunals worldwide increasingly see cases tied to exchange failures, hacked wallets, mis-selling, smart-contract exploits, and cross-border recovery. Poland is part of that trend. However, crypto-asset and blockchain disputes create distinctive procedural and evidentiary challenges in Poland—especially around jurisdiction, service, proof, interim measures, enforcement, and asset tracing.

Crucially, these disputes now sit inside a tightening regulatory perimeter. EU rules increasingly shape what evidence exists, which parties are regulated, and which recovery options are realistic. For litigators, the winning strategy is rarely “legal theory only.” It is procedure + technology + enforceability planning.

1) What crypto disputes look like in practice

Most matters fall into recurring patterns:

• Exchange and custodian disputes: blocked withdrawals, account freezes, compliance holds, insolvency events, or alleged misappropriation.

• Fraud and investment disputes: scams, impersonation, misrepresentation, and “guaranteed returns.”

• Smart-contract and DeFi disputes: protocol exploits, governance failures, oracle manipulation, and code defects.

• Commercial disputes: payment in crypto, valuation fights, settlement clauses, collateral/security arrangements.

The legal labels vary. The procedural reality is consistent: these cases are often cross-border, time-sensitive, and evidence-heavy.

2) Forum and jurisdiction: where your dispute will actually be heard

In disputes involving foreign exchanges, offshore counterparties, or EU-based service providers, jurisdiction can decide the case before merits are tested. A claimant may assume Poland is a “home court,” but that is not always correct.

If both parties are EU-domiciled, jurisdiction is typically assessed under the Brussels I bis framework. The default is suing in the defendant’s domicile, with important exceptions for contract (often linked to the place of performance) and tort/delict (where the harmful event occurred), plus any exclusive jurisdiction heads. In crypto disputes, forum and choice-of-court clauses often become the first battlefield. Platform terms, click-wrap acceptance, and incorporation by reference can determine whether the dispute belongs in Poland, another EU jurisdiction, or elsewhere.

If one party is outside the EU, the analysis splits. Where the defendant is EU-domiciled, the Brussels I bis logic still drives the forum outcome even if the claimant is non-EU. Where the defendant is non-EU, the dispute is generally assessed under Polish national jurisdiction rules (and any applicable treaty layer). That typically increases uncertainty and places more weight on connecting factors such as performance in Poland, effects in Poland, and assets located in Poland. It also makes service abroad and early evidence planning more consequential.

3) Arbitration: speed and control, but enforceability is the real test

Arbitration can be attractive in crypto disputes because it offers procedural flexibility and can handle technical evidence well. But enforceability still matters. If you will need recognition or enforcement through Polish courts, build the case with that review in mind.

Key legal issues to pressure-test early:

• Arbitrability and scope: ensure the dispute is arbitrable and the arbitration clause captures the full claim set, including non-contractual heads often pleaded in crypto disputes (tort, unjust enrichment).

• Validity and incorporation: confirm the clause is properly formed and binds the right counterparty (which is not always the brand-name platform).

• Due process hygiene: recognition/enforcement risk rises where service, notice, equality of arms, or party participation can be attacked.

• Public policy edge cases: remedies and narrative should be framed carefully where compliance themes appear (compliance-driven freezes, sanctions screening, fraud flags), to avoid outcomes that look incompatible with mandatory rules.

Arbitration is not a shortcut if the award cannot be converted into recovery.

4) Service of process and party identification

Crypto disputes frequently involve unknown addresses, foreign corporate layers, and rapid entity changes. In Polish litigation, service problems can delay the case and weaken interim relief. Build an identity and service file early: corporate extracts, contracting entity verification, screenshots of terms, compliance correspondence, and payment trails.

5) Evidence: on-chain proof, off-chain liability, and the court expert risk

On-chain data can show movement, timing, and transaction paths. But it rarely proves identity or control by itself. Courts need a coherent explanation of who controlled the wallet, what the transaction meant commercially, and how it links to the legal cause of action.

Polish courts can accept digital records, but persuasive value depends on how well evidence is framed, authenticated, and tied to entitlement, causation, and quantum. If the court considers the technical issues beyond its competence, it may appoint a court expert. That can extend timelines materially: the opinion must be prepared, parties may file objections, and the expert may be ordered to respond with a supplementary opinion. In more contentious matters, a second expert opinion may be ordered, adding further delay and cost. For counsel, the practical objective is to narrow uncertainty early, so the expert stage is controlled rather than open-ended.

Off-chain evidence often decides liability: platform policies, account logs, freeze rationale, risk disclosures, internal tickets, communications, and marketing materials.

6) Interim measures and securing claims: the Polish checklist

In crypto disputes, waiting for a final judgment can be commercially meaningless. Value can move quickly. Therefore, interim measures are often central, not optional.

In Polish security proceedings, the applicant should be ready to address four practical pillars:

a) Make the claim plausible.
b) Show a legal interest in security, meaning that without security, enforcement may be prevented or seriously hindered, or the purpose of proceedings may be frustrated.
c) Propose workable methods of security, tailored to how value is actually held. Abstract requests aimed at “the blockchain” are rarely effective; executable methods typically target identifiable accounts, receivables, intermediaries, or known assets.
d) Where execution steps are required, success often depends on cooperation with a competent and proactive enforcement officer who can implement the order efficiently.

Crypto can be approached as a right of economic value for security and recovery strategy, but operational execution must be engineered from the start.

7) Asset tracing: from transaction paths to real-world recovery

Tracing is not only technical—it is procedural. Effective recovery often requires a combined approach:

1. map on-chain pathways and clusters;

2. build attribution through regulated touchpoints (exchanges/custodians);

3. use legal tools to obtain relevant information where available;

4. pair tracing with interim measures to stop dissipation.

Interim relief plus enforcement is often the only way to convert a claim into recovery. Here, cooperation with a skilled enforcement officer is not a formality. With a well-drafted security motion and a workable method, an enforcement officer can take meaningful steps to locate and secure assets, including structured asset searches. In practice, the precision of your security application determines how executable the order becomes.

8) Enforcement planning: start on day one

In crypto disputes, enforcement planning should begin immediately. Choose claims, interim steps, and forum strategy with recoverability in mind—and operationalise the plan with the right enforcement partners. In our practice, we work closely with high-performing enforcement officers who have executed interim security orders and judgments in disputes involving modern technologies. That experience often separates a “paper win” from real recovery.

9) Regulatory and reputational pressure: civil disputes can run alongside criminal proceedings

Public communications and regulatory risk can influence settlement dynamics, disclosure strategy, and litigation posture. In crypto disputes, the commercial narrative often overlaps with a white-collar criminal track (fraud, misrepresentation, unlawful solicitation). As a result, civil litigation and arbitration strategy may need to run in parallel with criminal-law considerations: evidence preservation, privilege management, timing of disclosures, witness strategy, and asset-freezing dynamics. We have experience across both commercial dispute resolution and economic criminal matters, allowing strategy alignment across tracks.

If you are facing a crypto-asset or blockchain dispute with a Polish angle—whether in court or arbitration—our team can help you structure jurisdiction and evidence from day one, obtain effective interim measures, and build an enforcement-ready recovery strategy, including coordinated work with experienced enforcement officers in technology-driven matters.

This publication is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.