From a minor error to allegations – a brief history of our client’s costly mistake

The client runs a company operating in the distribution industry. A trade inspection carried out at the beginning of 2021 revealed certain irregularities in his business. The inspectors’ doubts were aroused by offering the product for sale in packaging other than that offered by their manufacturer. As a result of the inspection activities, the Client was summoned to appear at the Police Headquarters for questioning, during which he was charged with infringement of the provisions of the following acts:

1. Industrial Property Law Act;
2. The Act on Combating Unfair Competition;
3. an industrial law governing the client’s area of activity.

Each of the above acts alone is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment.

Pre-trial proceedings were at a stage when law enforcement authorities were aiming to formulate an indictment, so an immediate reaction was necessary. A prompt analysis of the collected evidence by lawyers from our law firm’s criminal law team made it possible to reverse the course of the proceedings so far and to prove to the Prosecution that the prerequisites of one of the alleged offences were not fulfilled by our Client at all, which made it possible to limit the description of the committed act to the two remaining behaviours.

At the same time, our lawyers supported the Client in conciliation talks with representatives of the wronged party – as a result of which a settlement was concluded and the wronged party agreed to withdraw the motion for prosecution, which resulted in the “elimination” of the next act from the charge.

As a result of the withdrawal of the motion for prosecution, the “gravity” of the alleged act was noticeably reduced – from that moment on, the basis of the charge was an act that only contained one criminal provision.

Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, inter alia:

• the non-fulfilment by us of the elements of some of the alleged acts,
• full cooperation of our client with law enforcement authorities and ongoing contact of defence counsel with the prosecutor conducting the proceedings,
• reconciliation between the offender and the victim,
• the offender’s efforts to make amends,
• our client’s good reputation to date,
• the fact that the questioned manner of marketing concerned only a small part of the product sold by our Client.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office agreed with our argumentation and, in view of the fact that the prerequisites of one of the alleged acts were not fulfilled and the so-called negative procedural prerequisite (lack of motion for prosecution) occurred with regard to the second act, it deemed the social harm of the ‘remaining’ act as minor, which in turn led to discontinuation of criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 17(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The decision in this case became final within the last few weeks and the client can, thanks to it, continue to conduct his business in an undisturbed manner, taking care, however, not to make a costly mistake again causing him a lot of stress and complications.