Since 29 January 2026, drink driving can result not only in a driving disqualification and a financial contribution but also in the loss of the car. Article 44b of the Criminal Code introduces vehicle forfeiture as a consequence of conviction for certain road traffic offences. It is worth knowing the exact conditions for its imposition – they differ significantly from what is often reported in the media.
Which Offences the Forfeiture Applies To
Article 44b of the Criminal Code covers convictions for:
- Article 178a § 1 – driving a vehicle while intoxicated,
- Article 178a § 4 – recidivism in drink driving,
- Article 178c § 1(2) – organising or participating in illegal motor vehicle races,
- Article 178d – grossly exceeding the speed limit and breaching road safety rules,
- Article 244 – driving in breach of a court-imposed disqualification from driving motor vehicles,
- Article 178 – causing a road traffic accident or disaster (aggravated penalty).
Discretionary Forfeiture – Article 44b § 1
On conviction for the listed offences, the court may order forfeiture of the motor vehicle. There is no lower alcohol concentration threshold – discretionary forfeiture is possible at any concentration above 0.5 per mille, including readings close to the lower threshold of the criminal offence.
The decision to order forfeiture rests with the court, which assesses the overall circumstances: the alcohol concentration, the manner of driving, the degree of danger created by the offender, previous convictions, the offender’s conduct in the proceedings and their personal circumstances.
Mandatory Forfeiture – Article 44b § 1a
Where the blood alcohol concentration is at least 1.5 per mille or 0.75 mg/dm³ in exhaled breath, the court orders forfeiture of the vehicle mandatorily. The only exception is an exceptional case justified by special circumstances – a narrow opening that requires express justification in the judgment.
When Vehicle Forfeiture Is Not Ordered – Article 44b § 5
Forfeiture of the vehicle is excluded in two situations.
First, where at the time of the offence the vehicle was not the sole property of the offender. This means forfeiture is not ordered where the vehicle is co-owned – it is sufficient that even a fractional share belongs to another person (for example a spouse or parent).
Second, where forfeiture of the vehicle is not possible or appropriate – in particular where the vehicle has been sold, lost, destroyed or significantly damaged by the offender.
A Financial Penalty Instead of Forfeiture – Article 44b § 6
Where forfeiture of the vehicle is excluded due to co-ownership (§ 5(1)), the court orders a financial penalty payable to the State Treasury of between PLN 5,000 and PLN 500,000. This is mandatory.
Where forfeiture is not possible or appropriate (§ 5(2)), the court may order a financial penalty within the same range. This is discretionary.
The financial penalty is not an equivalent of the vehicle’s value – its amount is not automatically tied to the market value of the car but is set by the court within the range of PLN 5,000 to PLN 500,000.
A Practical Summary
Concentration of 0.5–1.5 per mille (0.25–0.75 mg/dm³): Vehicle forfeiture is discretionary – the court may, but need not, order it. The absence of forfeiture does not preclude a financial penalty.
Concentration of at least 1.5 per mille (0.75 mg/dm³): Vehicle forfeiture is mandatory – unless an exceptional case applies. Where the vehicle is not solely owned by the offender or forfeiture is not possible, a mandatory financial penalty of PLN 5,000 to PLN 500,000 applies.
The Overall Financial Picture on Conviction at High Concentration
At a concentration of at least 1.5 per mille and a conviction under Article 178a § 1 of the Criminal Code, the total financial consequences include: a fine (from several to several tens of thousands of zlotys), a financial contribution to the Fund for Assistance to Victims (PLN 5,000–60,000) and forfeiture of the vehicle or a financial penalty of up to PLN 500,000. Court costs and any defence costs are additional.
Defence Strategy in Relation to Forfeiture
Where forfeiture is discretionary, active defence can encourage the court not to order it. Relevant factors include: no real danger created in traffic, no previous convictions, admission of guilt, a particularly difficult family or professional situation.
Where forfeiture is mandatory, the key may be demonstrating that the vehicle was not solely owned by the offender – which automatically excludes vehicle forfeiture and shifts the consequence to a financial penalty. It is also worth examining whether the circumstances of the case constitute an exceptional case.
At borderline readings (close to 1.5 per mille), the exact measurement result now directly determines whether forfeiture will be mandatory or discretionary. This is an additional argument for verifying the result by blood test.
Contact Us
If you have been stopped for drink driving at a high concentration and are concerned about vehicle forfeiture, it is worth discussing the matter with a lawyer as soon as possible. The defence strategy must take into account not only the principal penalty but also the question of forfeiture or the financial penalty.
It pays to be properly prepared: both in knowing what you can claim and in having a clear strategy.
We handle cases for drivers in Poznań and across the Wielkopolska region, with in-person and online consultations available for clients elsewhere in Poland.
Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz and Adwokat Michalina Koligot Law Firm “Adwokat dla Kierowców w Poznaniu” ul. Adama Mickiewicza 18/3, 60-834 Poznań tel. +48 795 001 536 · +48 531 335 713 kontakt@adwokatdlakierowcy.pl · www.adwokatdlakierowcy.pl
This text is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis.
