Warsaw Prosecutor’s Office Discontinues Investigation Involving Jarosław Kaczyński Over “Two Towers” Project

The Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office has discontinued the investigation into Jarosław Kaczyński regarding the planned “two towers” development, finding no evidence of fraud or bribery.

Investigation Discontinued

The PiS leader has reason to be satisfied. According to the District Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw, the evidence does not support the conclusion that Jarosław Kaczyński presented himself to Austrian businessman Gerald Birgfellner as the ultimate decision-maker regarding the construction of the so-called two towers. The investigation into this matter has been discontinued.

At the end of June, the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office announced that, due to the absence of the features of a prohibited act, it discontinued the investigation initiated on February 10, 2025. The probe concerned the aborted plans to build two skyscrapers on a plot in Warsaw owned by Srebrna, a company linked to PiS, with the Lech Kaczyński Institute Foundation also reportedly involved in the potential investment.

Details of the Allegations

What is the two-tower case about? The investigation concerned the inducement of Austrian businessman Gerald Birgfellner, between May 2017 and July 2018, to disadvantageously manage property of great value, amounting to “not less than 1,300,000 euros,” by individuals acting on behalf of Srebrna.

In June, Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office spokesperson Prosecutor Piotr Antoni Skiba announced that detailed grounds for the dismissal would not be provided until a German translation of the ruling was obtained. In a Thursday statement, Prosecutor Skiba stated that it was determined the case fulfilled neither the elements of fraud nor economic bribery.

Assessment of Kaczyński’s Role

The gathered evidence, according to the prosecutor’s office, does not allow for the assumption that Kaczyński presented himself to Birgfellner as a person who “actually decides on all matters related to the implementation of the planned investment.” On the contrary, “from the beginning, he informed the aggrieved party that the issues of his involvement in this investment had to be discussed with the management board of Srebrna.” Furthermore, “claims that all persons associated with the company merely executed and implemented the orders of Jarosław Kaczyński were not confirmed in the case materials.”

The prosecutor’s office noted that based on the gathered material, it had to be recognized that Kaczyński had knowledge of the investment planned by Srebrna, knew the members of the management board, talked with them about it, and, as the chairman of the council of the Lech Kaczyński Institute Foundation, gave his consent to the investment, as expressed by a resolution adopted by the council. However, the prosecutor’s office stated that the investigation did not show Kaczyński exerted influence on the decisions made in this matter by the management board of Srebrna.

Lack of Formal Authorization

“As established, Jarosław Kaczyński did not grant Gerald Birgfellner any power of attorney to take actions aimed at preparing this investment, nor did he personally commission any work from him in this regard. The talks conducted with Gerald Birgfellner regarding the investment were at a very general level, with no details established regarding either the scope of work or the expected remuneration,” the prosecutor’s office noted.

It added that based on the gathered material, “it was assumed that at most Gerald Birgfellner remained in a subjective, mistaken belief, unsupported by anything, that Jarosław Kaczyński is informally the decision-making person regarding Srebrna’s affairs.” Prosecutor Skiba noted in the statement that “no one consciously caused this belief in him,” adding that Kaczyński, unaware that Birgfellner held this mistaken belief, could not disabuse him of it either.

No Intent to Deceive

“The collected material also does not indicate that other persons associated with Srebrna were aware that the developer remained under such a mistaken belief and participated in this venture only for that reason. There is also no evidence that anyone wanted to use this false belief of the aggrieved party to lead him to an unfavorable disposal of property,” the prosecutor’s office noted.

The gathered material and findings did not confirm that Jarosław Kaczyński misled Gerald Birgfellner regarding the possibility of making decisions on behalf of Srebrna regarding the implementation of the investment, the will to implement it, and the intention to pay for actions taken related to the preparation of the investment, nor that he acted with the intent to lead the businessman to an unfavorable disposal of property and to achieve a financial gain for himself or another person.

Prosecution Reveals Kaczyński’s Testimony

Prosecutor Skiba noted in the statement that Kaczyński, who was questioned as a witness at the beginning of June this year, testified that the Austrian businessman “himself undertook actions as part of the preparation” of the investment, “set individual activities for himself, and no one imposed on him what to do, with which entities, and for what money,” and “did not consult this with anyone either, but only at most reported on it afterwards.”

According to the prosecutor’s office, this state of affairs was confirmed by the Austrian businessman himself, who indicated that “he personally conducted preliminary talks with potential contractors and negotiations, and did not establish any details in this regard with Jarosław Kaczyński.”

Furthermore, the prosecutor’s office stated there is a lack of any evidence indicating that Kaczyński or members of Srebrna’s governing bodies, when starting cooperation with Birgfellner, “misled him as to their actual intention” to carry out the investment. “There is also no doubt that Jarosław Kaczyński initially supported the intention to implement this investment. This is evidenced by the appropriate consents expressed by the bodies of the Lech Kaczyński Institute Foundation and the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of Srebrna, which he signed as a representative of the sole shareholder,” the prosecutor’s office noted.

Political Context and Termination of Powers

As added, Kaczyński testified that the decision to revoke Birgfellner’s “power of attorney had a political background and was associated on the one hand with the upcoming elections and public statements that could threaten him in winning them, and on the other hand with the position of the Warsaw authorities pointing directly to the lack of will to grant the necessary permits for the construction in question,” which—it was noted—”clearly indicates that his will regarding the implementation of this investment changed over time.”

“In addition, the collected evidentiary material shows that the reason for withdrawing from cooperation with Gerald Birgfellner was also dissatisfaction with the effects of his over a year of activities—the failure to obtain development conditions. To this was added the lack of clarity regarding Gerald Birgfellner’s expenses. The set of all these factors led to the decision that the company’s management board ultimately revoked the victim’s powers of attorney, while—as Jarosław Kaczyński testified—he did not exert influence on the board members in this regard, but also considered their decision to be right,” the prosecutor’s office stated.

Right of the Investor to Withdraw

Given the determination that this was the decision-making process of Kaczyński and the members of Srebrna’s management board “regarding the initiation and then withdrawal from the investment, there can be no question of fulfilling the element of misleading the aggrieved party as to the intention to implement the subject investment with the participation of the aggrieved party.” The prosecutor’s office stated, “The fact that the investor withdrew from this investment at a later stage does not change the criminal-law assessment, because we are then dealing not with misleading someone as to the intention to perform a contract (even an oral one), but with a withdrawal from it that is irrelevant from the point of view of criminal liability, or its non-performance.”

It also emphasized that “withdrawal from a contract, and even more so resignation from its conclusion due to a change in circumstances, and even the lack of payment—unless planned in advance—in no way provide a basis for considering the event that occurred as fraud,” and the event covered by the proceedings “should therefore be resolved exclusively on a civil-law basis.”

Financial Claims and Lack of Formal Agreement

According to the prosecutor’s office, this conclusion also applies to the financial claims that Birgfellner is making against Srebrna and Kaczyński. “The evidentiary material gathered in the case, including witness testimony and collected documents, does not confirm that a specific remuneration for Gerald Birgfellner’s involvement in the preparation of the project was agreed upon, nor the principles or date of payment. The arrangements in this regard were preliminary,” the prosecutor’s office stated.

It was noted that ultimately no contract was concluded from which the amount of remuneration established for Birgfellner would result. “Moreover, no mandate contract was concluded detailing the rights and obligations of the party, including remuneration and the deadline for its payment. Therefore, it is difficult to speak of misleading regarding the lack of intention to pay remuneration if its amount and payment terms were not ultimately agreed upon,” the prosecutor’s office stated.

According to the prosecutor’s office, “it is impossible to agree with Gerald Birgfellner that the power of attorney granted to him by Srebrna on June 6, 2017, somehow replaces a mandate contract, because from its content it cannot be deduced what activities the developer was obliged to undertake, let alone that he was to do so for remuneration,” and the actions of the Austrian businessman “can be assessed solely as action without a mandate, which again allows him to demand the return of outlays on the civil-law path, but does not generate criminal liability for persons who do not want to pay for such activities precisely because of the lack of a formal contract specifying the amount of remuneration.”

Civil Dispute Rather Than Criminal Matter

“The mere fact that there may be an obligation on the part of Srebrna resulting from the work actually performed by Gerald Birgfellner aimed at preparing the investment does not prove the occurrence of an extortion crime at the time of the conducted talks,” the prosecutor’s office noted. It added that “the dispute between the parties should be resolved through civil proceedings, not criminal ones,” and “criminal law cannot be used as a permanent object of pressure to satisfy typical civil claims.”

The prosecutor’s office further stated that “there is also a failure to fulfill the element of Jarosław Kaczyński or persons representing Srebrna taking actions consisting in ‘leading the aggrieved party to an unfavorable disposal of property’.”

“Although the investigation clearly showed that Gerald Birgfellner actually undertook a number of activities in order to implement the subject investment, there is no doubt that the aggrieved party incurred own costs and costs for other entities in connection with this. However, this alone does not prove that he was led by anyone to an unfavorable disposal of property,” reads the prosecutor’s office statement.

Responsibility for Expenses

Kaczyński’s testimony was cited to the effect that Birgfellner himself undertook actions as part of the preparation of the investment and “himself designated individual activities, no one imposed on him what to do, with which entities, and for what money,” and the developer only received “general” guidelines regarding what Srebrna expected of him, “however, ultimately it was he who decided in what direction to lead the project.”

“This was confirmed by the aggrieved party himself, who indicated that he personally conducted preliminary talks with potential contractors and negotiations, and did not establish any details in this regard with Jarosław Kaczyński. Above all, however, at no stage of the talks did he receive an order or even a suggestion to invest his own funds in this project. Thus, it cannot be said that anyone led Gerald Birgfellner to incur expenses for the subject investment,” the prosecutor’s office stated.

Austrian Businessman Bore Sole Responsibility

It noted that in light of all the collected evidentiary material, there is no doubt that Birgfellner “decided on expenses himself, without consulting anyone and without even warning about the necessity of incurring them (leaving aside for now the assessment of whether they were actually necessary).” “If these expenses were not agreed with Jarosław Kaczyński or with the management board of Srebrna, and moreover—were not within their awareness—it cannot be said that they took actions leading to the disposal of property by the aggrieved party,” the prosecutor’s office noted.

According to the office, the case also lacks the element of acting “in order to achieve a financial gain.” “Leaving aside the fact that the activities undertaken by Gerald Birgfellner did not lead anyone to achieve a financial gain, it should be emphasized that for the existence of the crime of fraud, it is necessary that the unfavorable disposal of property by the aggrieved party could lead to said gain, which in this case did not happen at all,” reads the prosecutor’s office’s position.

Lack of Financial Gain

According to the prosecutor’s office, the expenses and lost income of the businessman “in the given factual state could not lead to enrichment, i.e., to achieving a financial gain either by Srebrna or the Lech Kaczyński Institute Foundation, let alone by Jarosław Kaczyński or another natural person.” In this context, Prosecutor Skiba indicated that the lack of payment of remuneration and reimbursement of costs to the contractor “could lead to a financial gain for the principal only in a situation where the execution of the mandate took place, for which the principal would not pay” and had such an intention in advance.

Meanwhile, regarding the thread of handing over a so-called envelope for a priest through Kaczyński, the decision to discontinue the investigation was made based on other evidence and argumentation. The Lech Kaczyński Institute Foundation—Prosecutor Skiba stated—does not conduct business activity, and the priest who “allegedly was supposed to accept a bribe of 50,000 PLN from Gerald Birgfellner, which, moreover, has not been proven either” was only a member of the Council and did not hold a management role in it.

Right of Appeal

“The decision to discontinue the investigation is not final; the parties and their attorneys have the right to file an appeal with the Court. Copies of the decisions were sent to the parties,” the prosecutor stated. Following the information about the discontinuance of the investigation, Birgfellner’s attorney, Roman Giertych, announced that an appeal against the prosecutor’s office’s decision would be filed.