Biznes Fakty
Amber Gold. The Court of Appeal has issued a decision.
The Court of Appeal in Warsaw overturned the initial ruling and rejected a class action lawsuit brought by nearly 200 clients of Amber Gold. In 2022, the first-instance court awarded the former customers of the company over PLN 20 million.
„The defendant’s appeal, represented by the State Treasury (…), is fully warranted and led to the modification of the contested ruling and the complete dismissal of the claim. The Court of Appeal believes that the district court’s decision was flawed and not aligned with legal standards,” stated Judge Katarzyna Kisiel in the rationale for Friday’s Court of Appeal ruling.
Amber Gold ruling
In this instance, three years prior, the Warsaw District Court of First Instance largely supported the claims of Amber Gold’s clients. The central finding of the first-instance court’s decision was that „the primary issue and source of illegality in this matter” was that the investigative efforts regarding Amber Gold were initiated „with considerable delay by law enforcement agencies.”
This, as per the first-instance court, characterized the „complex nature of the State Treasury’s illegality.”
The State Treasury’s Attorney General’s Office contested the substance of that ruling, seeking its reversal. It contended, among other points, that the State Treasury should not be held accountable „for deliberate choices and risky actions taken by investors.”
In the verbal justification for Friday’s ruling, Judge Kisiel concurred with the prosecutor’s claims. She emphasized that the losses experienced by each of the company’s clients were not a consequence of the prosecutor’s office’s protracted investigations into the Amber Gold management but rather related to the company’s status as a business entity.
– Primarily, it must be noted that the evidence provided in this case did not support attributing liability to the State Treasury, or to specific units of the prosecutor’s office, as outlined in the Civil Code and the provisions regarding damages caused by unlawful actions or omissions in public authority execution – remarked Judge Kisiel.
Warning list and „sovereign decisions concerning fund investments”
The Court of Appeal opined that the first instance court incorrectly and unjustifiably concluded that there were grounds for compensation from the State Treasury and „an appropriate causal relationship between the actions and inactions of the prosecutor’s office and the damages suffered by the group members.”
– A different evaluation of the prosecutor’s actions cannot establish that these actions are illegal, but rather represents the expected, standard course of proceedings – the judge remarked, recalling that every decision made by the prosecutor’s office regarding Amber Gold was contested by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority and subsequently reviewed by the court.
In the Court of Appeal’s view, the first instance ruling was predicated on the incorrect assumption that „the decision to commence criminal proceedings and bring charges against a member of a capital company’s board is intended to, or results in, the company’s bankruptcy as a normal consequence.” „The primary reasons for the losses endured by Amber Gold investors were their independent choices regarding fund investments,” Judge Kisiel underscored.
As she reminded, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) had placed Amber Gold on a warning list back in 2009. „From January 2010 onwards, information began circulating in national media, on websites, and across various platforms indicating that the prosecutor’s office was conducting an investigation and that Amber Gold was on the warning list. Any prudent investor (…) should conduct thorough research and verify details about the entity in which they invest their funds,” the judge stated.
Amber Gold Clients’ Representative: Unsatisfactory Ruling
After exiting the courtroom, attorney Tomasz Krawczyk, representing the clients of the bankrupt firm, expressed that Friday’s decision was „unsatisfactory” for both the plaintiffs and their legal representatives, as well as for the many individuals harmed by Amber Gold, who „were looking to this ruling to determine whether to pursue their claims.”
He highlighted that two key issues led to the Administrative Court’s dismissal of the lawsuit. „First, the court determined that the prosecutor’s office’s actions in declining to commence an investigation and acting diligently were not unlawful, and second, that there was no causal relationship between the delayed charges and the damages incurred,” he informed reporters.
He assessed that none of these points should be accepted. He remarked that the arguments presented by the SA were „characteristic” of the belief that the filing of charges and the manner of conducting the investigation were solely at the prosecutor’s discretion.
On this matter, Attorney Krawczyk asserted that the prosecutor – as a state entity – must operate within the boundaries of the law, specifically defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure. „Sovereignty, meaning acting without being constrained by regulations or any other authority, certainly does not apply here,” he evaluated.
The lawyer also pointed out that, when discussing the causal connection between the prosecutor’s inaction and the damages, the Court of Appeal “overlooked the expert opinions submitted in the case, particularly the assessment of an expert social psychologist, which precisely indicated this connection.”
<
Źródło
