How the Minister of Justice spent funds to aid victims – the Justice Fund again under the NIK’s nose

The ultimate Audit Board assessed the negative functioning of the Justice Fund during the controlled period from 1 January 2021 to 9 May 2025. She besides negatively assessed the actions taken during this period by the Minister of Justice (the Fund's representative) in determining the legal and organisational conditions of the Fund. It was established that the financial economy of the Fund from January 2021 to December 2023 was conducted with a gross violation of the overarching principles of public finances, i.e. transparency and intent and savings of expenditure. It besides did not comply with the principles of the functioning of the special-purpose funds, which should service to carry out circumstantial and distinct public tasks. As a result, the funds that should be spent primarily on assistance to victims of crime and the re-adaptation of erstwhile detainees were spent to a large degree in a non-target and unprofitable way – the full amount of irregularities found during the audit amounted to nearly PLN 270 million.

Public-purpose funds are a circumstantial organisational form of public finance sector entities. They constitute an exception to the principles of unity and universality of the state budget by separating gross groups and allocating them to the financing of a precisely indicated, narrow group of public tasks. In principle, this should improve the efficiency of actions and guarantee their sustainable funding.

The Fund for Harmful Aid and Postpenitentiary Assistance – the Justice Fund (Justice Fund or Fund) was created in 2012 and was intended primarily to aid victims of crimes. Legal, intellectual or material support for these persons, financed by means of convictions, was to be an expression of social justice on the 1 hand and, on the another hand, of the state's concern for the injured.

The implementation of these assumptions has been regularly examined by NIK over the last years (Assistance to victims of crime under the Harmful Aid Fund – in 2018; Implementation of the State budget in 2018, section 37 - Justice and implementation of financial plans of the Fund for Harmful Aid and Postpenitentiary Assistance - the Fund for Justice and the Fund for Professional Activation of Convicted Persons and the improvement of Prison Works – in 2019; Implementation of the Fund for Harmful Assistance and Postpenitentiary Assistance — Fund for Justice – in 2021), and the conclusions of the audit were forwarded to the Fund's Member, the Minister of Justice. – The findings of these checks showed that the measures which were to be targeted primarily at victims of crime were actually spent on another purposes, as well as in an uneconomic and unreliable manner – says Paweł Gibula, the deputy manager of the National safety Department of NIK. Due to the fact that persons who were obliged by December 2023 to reject the applications referred to by the NIK, refraining from their implementation or implementing them in a way completely different from their actual content, the NIK College, in August 2023, introduced another audit of the functioning of the Justice Fund to the NIK Work Plan for 2024.

Circumstances of control

Started in May 2024 NIK control (including the period from 1 January 2021 to 9 May 2025) In addition to a summary of erstwhile checks, it was intended to let recommendations to be drawn up that would, in a systemic way, counter the unprofitable usage of public funds and reconstruct victims of crime to their due resources. The audit coincided with the actions of law enforcement authorities in connection with the investigation of irregularities in the spending of funds from the Fund. It was so conducted under peculiar conditions, consisting of: safety of papers by law enforcement authorities, detention of the management of certain controlled entities, or refusal of evidence and explanations by persons liable for the irregularities found, citing criminal liability. This resulted in the request to extend controls in controlled units, but did not affect the scope and relevance of the findings made by the NIK.

– As part of this audit, the NIK has one more time comprehensively examined all aspects of the functioning of the Justice Fund in terms of the correct and efficient usage of funds by the Fund's Commissioner and 22 beneficiaries: 1 university and 21 NGOs, with 30 contracts with a full value of over PLN 260 million, which accounted for just over 30% of the full contract value in force during this period. – explains Paweł Gibula. The survey covered all areas of activity of the Fund:

• post-penitentiary aid;
• assistance to victims of crime and witnesses;
• Crime prevention.

Free and uncontrolled usage of funds

The changes introduced in 2017 to the law, extending the objectives of the Fund by the broad and vague notion of "anti-crime", resulted in funds being transferred to so diverse tasks that in the assessment of the NIK, the Justice Fund has in practice lost the characteristics of the special-purpose fund. By introducing the alleged non-contribution procedure, The Minister of Justice has ensured that funds may be transferred to almost any institution and for any purpose. By December 2023, the responsibilities of the Fund's Commissioner consistently ignored the assessments, comments and conclusions made following subsequent audits of the NIK and grant grants for tasks that only seemingly met the objectives of the Justice Fund. For example, a construction investment utilized for the Foundation's own purposes was financed as an anti-crime measure; the construction and maintenance of web portals, where materials supporting circumstantial political parties were published; the acquisition of motorhomes (under the pretext of providing legal advice); mountain and street runs; movie festivals or legal and managerial education of selected groups. In the framework of assistance to victims of crime, over PLN 66 million was supported by the investment of the Profeto.pl Foundation, which was obliged to supply specified aid for only 1 year (more about the usage of public funds by the beneficiaries of the Justice Fund – Operation of the Justice Fund).

Competitions only by name

– The negative assessment of NIK afraid in peculiar the way in which backing from the Justice Fund was granted. In the allocation of these funds, the Consponsent not only did not guarantee equal treatment for all applicants for co-financing, but even supported any bidders and arbitrarily made decisions which were to receive support – emphasized Paweł Gibula. At the same time, the trustee took action to counter the allegations of discretion by obtaining affirmative recommendations from the competition committees to the preferred entities.

A detailed examination of 15 open competitions for entrusting tasks to NGOs has shown gross examples of infringement of the principles of fair competition. They consisted primarily of providing informal support by the staff of the Ministry of Justice to any entities in the preparation of tenders even before they were officially submitted and even before the competitions themselves were announced. Selected tenderers (Foundation of the Strong in the Spirit, Fidei Defensor Association, Center for Harmful Assistance and Crime Prevention Foundation, The Association of Media Friends, the Institute of Systemic Law, the Warsaw Foundation for the Seminary of Axiology of Administration) thus obtained guidance on how to change or supplement applications to increase their chances, and the Minister was thus argued that he actually supports the best quality offers.

Pressure on members of competition committees

Another mechanics to fund offers favoured by the Ministry's then management was influence and evaluation of selected members of the competition committees. The evaluation cards were reviewed by the management of the Justice Fund Department or another staff assigned to that task, as a consequence of which they submitted their suggestions on the revision of the assessments toto get a score of individual offers expected by the justice department. This mechanics was utilized in the case of Profeto.pl Foundation, which resulted in the award of more points to this entity and simplification of scoring to another participants of the competition.

Another mechanics identified by the audit to influence the results of the competitions was submission of selected tenders for reassessment. It was applied to at least 4 tenders which were originally low-rated and did not qualify for funding. They were then transferred to another evaluators who granted them assessments and credits this time.

Irreliability of competitions

The competitions examined were prepared in an unfair manner and did not supply conditions for nonsubjective and independent evaluationoffers. First of all, the Consponsor has not developed guidelines indicating which elements should be premiumed and where negative points should be granted. As a result, the members of the competition committees made their assessments on a discretionary basis, assessing for example the same offers and the same circumstances in a completely different way. This was even sanctioned by the Disponent, who introduced an additional, full subjective, assessment criterion in any anti-crime competitions – the alleged general (literal) evaluation. The letter assessment was overriding against the authoritative evaluation criteria set out in the Fund Regulation and the number of points allocated.

Unfairly prepared, non-transparent and recognised competitions for backing from the Fund were 1 of the main reasons for the irregularity in the another areas covered by the survey. – In the case of anti-crime competitions, In fact, NIK assessed that they were not designed to solve real problems. On the another hand, they were an excuse to support a certain group of entities by public means – financed their day-to-day activities, not the implementation of the tasks of the Justice Fund. This resulted in a non-target grant of 16 out of 18 controlled grants from this area, for a full of PLN 98.7 million – adds Paweł Gibula.

Security-free contracts, money out of control

Holder of the Fund did not safe in the contracts concluded, in a appropriate manner the interests of the Treasury. He allowed a crucial proportion of contract contractors to get unauthorised, crucial revenues from flat-rate and undocumented administrative costs. He did not prevent conflicts of interest covering those who decide to spend public funds and beneficiaries of those measures and have not implemented effective mechanisms to supervise the implementation of contracts. Nor did he carry out a reliable verification of the effects and costs of the tasks commissioned to grant contracts. The findings of the NIK auditors show that the actions of persons acting as the Commissioner of the Justice Fund between 2021 and 2023 are unreliable. Moreover, they were frequently intended to be supported by a circumstantial group of entities.

A akin situation occurred in the case of actions to advance the Justice Fund – decisions on the directions and strength of promotion or the communication channels utilized were made ad hoc and were of a discretionary nature. Contractors of promotional activities were chosen unfairly, in violation of the rules, i.e. without the application of public procurement law or with only the appearance of competition, and the actions themselves besides served to advance the image of circumstantial persons. The peculiar strength of specified activities was identified in 2023, in which the election run for the Sejm and the legislature was conducted.

Overshooting of Fund operating costs

NIK besides negatively assessed the fact that the Minister of Justice, in violation of the provisions of the Fund Regulation, twice exceeded the permissible limit on its operating costs. This was the first time in 2021, erstwhile the limit was PLN 6.4 million and was exceeded by almost PLN million (15%). At the time, the operating costs threshold was increased from 2.5% to 4% of the planned revenues, but this did not prevent the refraction of the rules. In 2023 the limit was already PLN 11.6 million, and was inactive exceeded by PLN 16.6 million (142%). This was mainly due to the extremist and unjustified increase in the costs of promoting the Fund during the 2023 electoral run and in the period immediately preceding it, and meant that appropriations for assistance to victims of crime or the re-adaptation of erstwhile detainees were utilized in breach of the applicable regulations, inter alia to advance the individual and the environment of the Fund's Dispensant at the time.

Lessons learned from erstwhile checks

NIK besides negatively assessed the actions taken by the Fund's associate immediately after the audit was completed in 2021 (Implementation of the tasks of the Fund for Harmful Assistance and Postpenitionary Assistance - Fund for Justice). Not only were the systemic irregularities found at the time not removed, but their scale increased.

Also, the actions taken by the Minister of Justice since December 2023 (until the end of the audit activities) have only limitedly improved the legal and organisational conditions of the Justice Fund. – Come on. the very fact that in December 2024 the provisions limiting the hazard of discretion and non-transparent distribution of public funds were introduced, the NIK welcomes, however, there is inactive neither a detailed directory of the Fund's tasks nor circumstantial recommendations on changes in its functioning. The situation did not improve the creation of a Council specifically for the Fund for Harmful Aid and Postpenitentiary Assistance – the Justice Fund for this purpose – points out Paul Gibula.

Conditions for corrective action

During the period under scrutiny, there was a regular and crucial increase in the gross of the Justice Fund – from nearly PLN 377 million in 2021 to almost PLN 470 million in 2024.

Graphic description

Description in the study.

The vast majority of the gross was contributions from the courts of chief and cash benefits. In the face of expanding revenues on a regular basis, successive Dispensaries did not build a staff and organisational resource within the Ministry of Justice to guarantee effective management of these resources. Furthermore, the trustee could not decently plan the tasks he had assigned to individual entities, and the Fund's bank account remained crucial unused cash (this situation occurred before 2017 and has clearly occurred again since 2024).

Graphic description

Description in the study.

Conclusion

The ultimate Audit Chamber assessed that urgent, systemic corrective action was needed to prevent the future uneconomic and untargeted usage of the Justice Fund. The home made recommendations to the Fund's Commissioner on a legislative and organisational proposal. They shall relate in peculiar to:

1. Developing a fresh concept of the functioning of the Justice Fund specifying the circumstantial tasks to be carried out by this special-purpose fund in connection with criminal offences and deductions from the wages of the convicted. It is besides essential to specify how the Fund can complement (instead of mostly replicating) tasks carried out by another central authorities and regional authorities. The implementation of this concept should be correlated with the amendment to the Implementing Code, which would reconstruct the nature of the special-purpose fund to the Justice Fund and introduce systemic mechanisms to prevent future abuses of its resources.
2. Focus the activities of the Justice Fund on the implementation of State policies in the area of compensating for the consequences of crimes and supporting those who have been sentenced to imprisonment. However, given the importance of preventing and preventing crime, The NIK proposes to keep the anticipation of financing specified activities from the Fund, with a crucial simplification in the scope and scope of these activities.
3. Initiate legislative work to amend the provisions of the Implementing Code and the Fund Regulation, by clarifying and harmonising the deadlines utilized to specify the Fund's tasks relating to the alleged ‘anti-crime’.In the opinion of the NIK, it is essential to limit and clarify the scope of the tasks to be financed by the Fund and a group of entities that may receive support for this purpose. Existing regulations should clearly find which actions can be financed in the framework of the fight against crime, and the link between these actions and the objectives of the Fund must be direct and clear. This means focusing support on the environment afraid by risk-taking behaviour and the prevention of circumstantial types of crime. The objectives of preventive action should be formulated in a manner consistent with the SMART rule (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-defined) and not without marked time limits, general and indefinite results.
4. Development of a fresh organisational expression for having the Fund. Taking into account the constant increase in the Fund's gross and the inefficient management of these resources, NIK calls for consideration to be given to the introduction of legal mechanisms to decentralise part of its tasks. It could take place by entrusting preventive tasks and redirecting any of the Fund's resources to preventive actions carried out by specialised actors, specified as the provision of the Police Support Fund or the participation of the Fund's Commissioner in government preventive and preventive action programmes (e.g. "Governmental Crime and Asocial Behaviour Programme Together safer to them Władysław Stasiak). In the area of support for victims of crime, any tasks should be considered, together with financial resources, to specialised public entities straight providing assistance to victims. specified a transfer could in peculiar concern social assistance centres and household support centres whose activities mostly coincide with the forms of assistance provided by the centres and points financed by the Fund. These actions should besides be planned according to the SMART concept.

In addition, the applicant requested to the Fund’s associate including:

1. Implementation of organisational changes essential to guarantee the smooth functioning of the Fund.The holder should establish a strategy for the efficient management of the tasks associated with the operation of the Fund. This strategy should include, in particular, structures to: analyse and plan the desired areas of intervention of the Fund (e.g. recognition of the types of offences covered by preventive actions in a given period), organisation of tender competitions, supervision and settlement of funds transferred and evaluation of the effects of tasks financed by the Fund.
2. Sound improvement of the content of the programmes, taking into account the mechanisms for diagnosis of the problems they concern, and indicators to verify the results of their implementation.
3. Edit notices on open tender competitions in a way that clearly describes the expectations of the Disponent, including in peculiar a precise description of the intent and manner of the task for which the grant is awarded, together with the expected results and indicators.
4. The creation of solutions and the improvement of criteria for the substantive, comprehensive and nonsubjective evaluation of competitive offers, and the provision of conditions for the members of the competition committees to measure tenders fairly, including the improvement of guidelines for independent evaluation of individual bid positions and tools to verify the reality of marketplace prices contained in tenders.
5. Introduction of legal and organisational solutions to prevent conflicts of interest and the creation of corruptive mechanisms, both at Ministry and grant beneficiaries level. The procedures adopted should counter:
   • the employment of persons straight active in the implementation of projects financed by the Justice Fund in the evaluation and settlement of applications;
   • employing in the associations/foundations on a commercial basis the members of the board of directors of the foundation/association which is the contractor of the grant agreement, the persons closest to them or the members of their bodies;
   • combining executive and supervisory functions (e.g. contractor and authorising officer of expenditure), the functions of persons providing support and verifying their tasks, providing support to their own household members and persons in the bodies of foundations/ associations.
6. Strengthen the supervision of the Consponsor of the regularity of performance of grant agreements by contractors, in peculiar by verifying the objectives pursued, the indicators achieved and the products produced and the expenditure incurred.

The establishment of specified mechanisms would, in the opinion of the NIK, guarantee the rational usage of public funds, inter alia, by eliminating multiple financing of the same expenditure from different sources and discretional decisions A trustee for the allocation of funds in areas where he does not have adequate competence or ability to operate effectively.