It is September 2020—hopefully a post-pandemic world. Your company has successfully weathered the storms of crisis, and social and economic life is slowly recovering its previous pace. Most people work at the office again, and you are on your way there. Before arriving at 9 am, you usually stop by the corner coffee place to have a morning espresso and browse the daily news. But at 8:15 am you get a call from the office. It is the receptionist, saying that the company has been approached by agents requesting to inspect the company’s files and computer system. You get to the office and find a few men waiting in black suits. They present a warrant and insist on starting the inspection immediately. It is a dawn raid. And the question is whether you are prepared to handle it.
Fraud is a lurking underside of the pandemic, requiring vigilance and preventive measures.
Perpetrators of border offences aren’t all human traffickers or smugglers of goods. Increasingly they are citizens of third countries wishing to travel around the EU for study, work, or tourism. To facilitate obtaining a visa or an extension of their stay, they may use the services of intermediaries who don’t always operate lawfully. Visitors risk a lot this way. If the Border Guard finds that a passport or visa is falsified, the holder may not only be denied entry into an EU member state, but may also be convicted of a criminal offence and have their details entered in registers, hindering future travel in the Schengen zone. How can travellers defend themselves in this situation?
Activity of law enforcement authorities concerning irregularities of a criminal nature can result in heavy losses to a company’s finances and image. Certain investigative and procedural measures (such as a search of corporate premises, seizing items or detaining people) can have a negative impact on the company’s business and reputation. The consequences can be even more serious if these measures lead to filing of allegations, indictment and conviction of high-ranking company officials. This is yet another argument for maintaining an effective compliance programme.
On 5 October 2019, the third “fundamental” reform of Polish criminal procedure in the last four years came into force. It is supposed to be faster, fairer and less bureaucratic. We heard the same claims for the changes coming into force on 1 July 2015 and then on 15 April 2016. But court cases have not speeded up. On the contrary, there are more complaints about delays and thus payments from the State Treasury to victims of dilatory proceedings.
On 6 June 2019, another amendment to the Pharmaceutical Law came into force. Its aim is to reduce the occurrence of non-availability of medicines. According to the authors of the changes, only more severe penalties and broader penalisation can limit the undesirable occurrence of the reverse distribution chain. However, the first comments on these changes show that the threat of penalties alone may not be enough to achieve this goal. It has been known for some time now that the inevitability of punishment is an indicator of the effectiveness of criminal policy.