Over the last few weeks, we have noticed increased media activity of law firms dedicated to the Conotoxia situation. We want to stress that some of the statements appearing in the public space are untrue and may constitute an attempt to create panic among Conotoxia customers to win new contracts for law firms. Understanding the frustration and stress of our customers, we appeal for vigilance and making well-thought decisions.
Cinkciarz.pl Sp. z o.o., a company belonging to Conotoxia Holding, has prepared settlement proposals for customers seeking additional security. They will guarantee the return of 100 per cent of the entrusted funds on the agreed date and the payment of statutory interest for the waiting period.
At the same time, there are regular statements in the public space by lawyers representing law firms that have launched special service lines supposedly to guarantee a quick recovery. The effect of hiring these law firms may be the opposite: instead of making it easier to unblock the funds, it will make it far more complex. A settlement proposed by the Company would appear to be more advantageous.
On YouTube, for example, one can find an interview with attorney Jedrzej Jachira of the law firm Sobota Jachira (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Dpj5FYZ4U) broadcast on TVP Info. The interview is also promoted on the law firm's website.
In the interview referred to above, attorney Jachira stated that the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) revoked Cinkciarz.pl Sp. z o.o.'s licence for the provision of payment services. This is an obvious lie, as the KNF's decision concerned only Conotoxia sp. z o.o.
The statement indicated can hardly be interpreted otherwise than as an attempt to cause panic among Cinkciarz.pl's customers aimed at obtaining new clients by the law firm. Otherwise, the statement should prove the incompetence of the person making it.
Further, attorney Jachira tried to encourage Cinkciarz.pl's customers to use the law firm's services to file motions to secure property claims. The image that emerged from his argument was that the court's granting of security would protect the customer from the Company's possible bankruptcy.
This, too, is untrue. The security in the form of the seizure of a bank account not only does not protect against possible bankruptcy but also cannot be enforced during restructuring proceedings. In practice, this means that a customer opting for the path proposed by attorney Jachira will incur court and bailiff costs in implementing the security. In turn, the security itself will be ineffective, complicate the customer's legal situation and lengthen the time it will take to complete other transactions.
A more favourable solution seems to be a settlement agreement with the Company. Signing it means acknowledging the debt, which significantly improves the customer's litigation situation in case of a possible later decision to take legal action against the Company. In addition, the settlement includes higher than statutory interest for the waiting period, which is an additional safeguard for the customer's interests.
Moreover, it is also beyond dispute that the execution period of the settlement agreement is much shorter than the average duration of court proceedings until a final judgment is obtained.
Conotoxia sp. z o.o. has filed a complaint against the KNF's decision. We stand by our view that the reason for the licence's revocation was not so much the Company's violations as a change in the Authority's approach, which for years had raised no objections to the way in which customer funds were held. In fact, the change in the KNF's stance undermined one of the most important assumptions on which the Company had based its previous operating model.
We believe the KNF's action poses a more significant threat to customers' interests than the allegations. At the same time, we would like to point out that problems in relations with banks affect the entire fintech industry. Unfortunately, the Authority has been deaf to these signals for years.