Channel reporter Against Censuring reached a recorded conversation, which shows that the known Bydgoszcz lawyer Janusz M. Declares the anticipation of lifting the provisional arrest. In the recording, there is simply a direct message about the “settling” of the release from detention.
Whether it was a boast or a real promise of a given result, the very fact that specified assurances request to be clarified – the decision to apply or repeal an insulating preventive measurement falls within a strictly defined judicial procedure.
Strange Proposals
Janusz M. For years, he has created the image of an experienced and effective lawyer. This is confirmed by content posted on related websites, maintained in the speech of professional self-presentation. All the more reason for dissonance is the content of a conversation in which there are ambiguous, suggestive phrases on the anticipation of influencing the course of criminal proceedings.
In the video, the lawyer indicates the starting amount of PLN 50,000. At the same time, it states that it may not see a penny from these measures. This message gives the case a fresh species weight. If this sum is not to constitute a fee for defence activities, the question of its intent is raised. The subject of his "exceptional relations" with the Bydgoszcz-South territory Prosecutor's Office is besides discussed. A summary of the advanced amount, declared deficiency of individual benefit and suggestions of circumstantial organization links creates a configuration of circumstances that cannot be underestimated.
Walking Act
Last September, the Central Anticorruption Office in Bydgoszcz received a notification of the anticipation of Janusz M. The case was subsequently transferred to the National Prosecutor's Office (file number: 1001-14.Ko.532.2025), later to the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Gdańsk (file number: 2002-5.Ko.477.2025), further to the territory Prosecutor's Office in Elbląg (file number: 3007-4.Dsn.277.2025), and yet went to the territory Prosecutor's Office in Elbląg.
Such proceedings may have formal reasons relating to the locality or the request to exclude a peculiar unit. From a public perspective, however, it is akin to the lengthy circulation of papers between institutions. The information available shows that the evidence is not expanded or complex. It is all the more reasonable to ask why there has been no clear decision over the course of months.
Broader context
There are signals from different regions of the country about akin situations: people in detention are offered to regain their freedom rapidly in exchange for advanced fees. If akin practices do work, at least 2 scenarios are possible. The first means an abuse of client assurance and making uncovered declarations. The second – much more serious – implies an effort to exert an illegal influence on law enforcement.
Important Questions
As a result, the key questions remain: were the assurances contained in the conversation simply part of a rhetoric designed to convince the client of the effectiveness of the defender, or the announcement of actions going beyond the legal framework? What was the actual intent of the indicated amount? And for what reasons did the announcement decision between the next levels of the prosecution?
We have addressed questions about the position to stakeholders. There is no area for ambiguity in matters of imprisonment – the situation requires clear findings and transparent actions of the competent institutions.
Jacek Tomczak
