← back to the index
VT-013 Crypto exchange · Poland 2019

Bitmarket.pl — Poland’s Second-Largest Exchange Collapsed, Taking 2,300 Bitcoin With It

trading-exchangedeceasedico-era
Platform
Bitmarket.pl
Est. Losses
~PLN 100M (~$25M USD)
Users Affected
2,300+ victims
Status
Deceased

Summary

Bitmarket.pl, Poland's second-largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, ceased all operations on July 8, 2019, posting a brief notice on its website attributing the closure to a sudden loss of liquidity. The platform had operated since approximately 2015 under the control of co-owners Tobiasz Niemiro and Marcin Aszkiełowicz, who had taken over an exchange that already carried an outstanding deficit of more than 600 BTC at the time of their acquisition. When the platform went offline, users found they could not access or withdraw an estimated 2,300 bitcoin — then worth approximately PLN 100 million ($25 million USD) — held in their accounts.

The District Prosecutor's Office in Suwałki opened a criminal investigation, overseen by the Department of Combating Cybercrime of the Provincial Police Headquarters in Olsztyn. More than 400 users filed formal complaints, and prosecutors later concluded that from mid-2015 through July 7, 2019, the exchange's operators had systematically misled customers about the financial condition of the platform. On September 12, 2019, Marcin Aszkiełowicz was formally charged with defrauding 525 users of assets totalling PLN 22.66 million ($5.8M), a charge carrying a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. He was additionally accused of defrauding a share buyer the same year by misrepresenting the company's financial position. Polish prosecutors indicated the full scope of losses attributable to the period of operation was substantially larger.

Tobiasz Niemiro, the exchange's other co-owner, was found dead on July 25, 2019, in a forest near Olsztyn, approximately three weeks after the exchange closed. Polish authorities and Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's leading national newspaper, reported the death as an apparent suicide by gunshot. Acquaintances publicly disputed that characterisation. No criminal conclusion regarding the circumstances of Niemiro's death has been reported. He was 44 years old. The legal proceedings against Aszkiełowicz continued. No trial verdict has been publicly confirmed in available sources as of the time of this writing.

Timeline

~2015
Platform acquired
Tobiasz Niemiro and Marcin Aszkiełowicz take ownership of the Bitmarket.pl exchange, which was already carrying a deficit of over 600 BTC at the time of acquisition.
May 2015
Alleged fraud begins
Per the later prosecutorial charge, the systematic misleading of users about the platform's financial condition begins from approximately this date.
2017–2019
Growth period
Bitmarket.pl reaches a daily trading volume averaging approximately $850,000 PLN, making it Poland's second-largest exchange and one of the most prominent in Central Europe.
July 8, 2019
Exchange closes
Bitmarket.pl posts a short notice citing loss of liquidity and ceases all operations. Users attempting to access funds or initiate withdrawals are locked out. An estimated 2,300 BTC held in user accounts becomes inaccessible.
July 11, 2019
Investigation opened
Polish authorities announce a formal criminal investigation. The District Prosecutor's Office in Suwałki takes jurisdictional lead, with cybercrime police in Olsztyn conducting technical work.
July 25, 2019
Niemiro found dead
Co-owner Tobiasz Niemiro, 44, is found in a forest near Olsztyn with a gunshot wound to the head. Gazeta Wyborcza reports the death as an apparent suicide. Acquaintances dispute the characterisation publicly. Polish authorities do not announce any alternative finding.
September 12, 2019
Charges filed against Aszkiełowicz
The Suwałki prosecutor formally charges Marcin Aszkiełowicz with misleading 525 exchange users from May 2015 to July 7, 2019, causing losses of PLN 22,661,288. He faces up to 10 years' imprisonment. A second charge relates to fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of company shares.
Late 2019
Aszkiełowicz denies charges
Co-founder issues statements attributing the exchange's collapse to external financial pressures, denying deliberate misappropriation of client funds. He is not reported to have fled the jurisdiction.
2020 onward
Proceedings continue
The Polish criminal case against Aszkiełowicz remains in process. No publicly confirmed verdict has been reported in available English-language or translated sources as of the date of this dossier. Users who filed claims are part of an active civil and criminal proceedings; no recovery of the 2,300 BTC has been publicly documented.

Inherited Deficit, Manufactured Legitimacy

Bitmarket.pl's operators did not build the exchange from a clean foundation. When Niemiro and Aszkiełowicz took control around 2015, they acquired a platform that already owed more than 600 BTC to its users — a structural shortfall from prior management that the incoming operators did not disclose publicly and, per the later criminal charge, never resolved. The acquisition of a pre-existing exchange provided instant market presence: an established brand, a working trading engine, a live user base, and the appearance of continuity. None of that inheritance was disclosed to users who deposited funds after the transfer of ownership.

Over the following four years, Bitmarket.pl grew into a recognisable fixture of the Polish cryptocurrency market. Its daily volume placed it second only to BitBay in the domestic exchange rankings. It supported PLN-denominated pairs, offered a relatively low fee structure, and maintained a publicly accessible interface that functioned normally for most users throughout the period. The prosecutors' timeline suggests the misrepresentation of the platform's financial condition ran continuously from 2015 forward — meaning that the exchange's apparent normality during years of growth was, in the investigators' assessment, a sustained presentation of stability that did not reflect the underlying balance sheet.

The KNF (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego), Poland's financial regulatory authority, publicly stated after the collapse that it had no legal mandate to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges operating at the time, and that Bitmarket.pl had not been subject to any oversight framework that would have required disclosure of reserves or audited accounts. The KNF's statement was widely read as an acknowledgment that Poland's regulatory architecture provided no practical protection for cryptocurrency depositors.

The Liquidity Claim and Its Limits

The platform's closure notice — a brief website post attributing the shutdown to a loss of liquidity — framed the event as an operational casualty rather than a financial crime. Liquidity crises at exchanges are documented phenomena: sudden customer withdrawals, declining market conditions, and inadequate reserves can combine to produce insolvency without any fraudulent intent. The operators' initial public posture leaned on precisely this ambiguity.

The criminal charge filed two months later reframed the timeline significantly. The prosecution alleged that the misleading of customers had not begun in July 2019 but had been ongoing since at least May 2015 — the period during which users were, according to prosecutors, given false impressions about the platform's financial condition. This is distinct from a sudden liquidity crisis: it describes a multi-year discrepancy between the information presented to depositors and the actual state of the platform's finances.

The scale of the unrecovered funds deepens the question. Prosecutors identified PLN 22.66 million in documented losses across 525 formally charged accounts, but the total estimated by investigators across the platform's user base reached PLN 100 million — a figure that encompassed approximately 2,300 BTC. The gap between the per-account documented charge and the full estimated loss reflects the practical difficulty of reconstructing individual claim values across an exchange that did not maintain independently audited records and whose operational infrastructure ceased to function on the day of closure.

Two Thousand Three Hundred Bitcoin and No Recovery

The 2,300 users and secondary complainants who filed formal reports represent a documented lower bound on those affected; thousands more depositors who did not reach the threshold for formal complaint participation held smaller balances that were also rendered inaccessible. The PLN figure (approximately $25 million at 2019 exchange rates) represents the value at the time of closure; because those losses were denominated in Bitcoin, the unrecovered value has shifted substantially with subsequent price movements.

No assets have been publicly reported as recovered or returned to depositors. The operator directly charged, Aszkiełowicz, remained in Poland and within the jurisdiction of the proceedings, unlike several comparable exchange fraud cases in which operators fled. His continued availability has allowed the criminal process to proceed, but availability within a jurisdiction is not equivalent to recovery of funds: the question of where the 2,300 BTC went — whether misappropriated, lost through trading losses, or consumed by the deficit inherited in 2015 — had not been publicly resolved in available reporting as of this writing.

Polish consumer protection authorities and victim groups organised collectively after the closure, filing coordinated claims and attempting to establish a civil recovery channel. Those efforts remained ongoing, with no confirmed distributions documented. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority's post-closure statement that it lacked jurisdiction over the exchange as it had operated effectively drew a line under the regulatory failure: the depositors of Bitmarket.pl had no investor protection scheme, no deposit guarantee, and no regulator empowered to intervene.

The Five Factors

01
Unaudited inherited deficit
Bitmarket.pl's operators acquired a platform carrying more than 600 BTC in outstanding obligations and operated it for four years without publicly resolving that deficit. The absence of any requirement for incoming exchange operators to disclose legacy liabilities — or for any independent body to audit those liabilities before the exchange resumed trading — meant that depositors had no means of knowing the platform's actual financial position at the time they made deposits.
02
Regulatory vacuum in cryptocurrency custody
Poland had no regulatory framework requiring cryptocurrency exchanges to segregate customer funds, maintain capital adequacy ratios, or submit to independent audit during Bitmarket.pl's entire operational period. The KNF's public acknowledgment that it had no jurisdiction over the exchange at the time of collapse documents this gap explicitly. Users depositing into a Polish crypto exchange received no protections equivalent to those offered by licensed financial institutions.
03
Liquidity narrative as delay mechanism
The "loss of liquidity" framing deployed in the closure notice is a recurring pattern in exchange fraud: it positions a potentially criminal outcome as a commercially foreseeable one, buys time before regulatory scrutiny escalates, and invites sympathy rather than investigation. The prosecution's subsequent charge that the deception had been ongoing for years is incompatible with the sudden-crisis narrative — but the narrative served its purpose in the hours and days immediately following closure.
04
Single-jurisdiction platform, multi-entity corporate structure
Bitmarket.pl was operated through companies incorporated in London and the Seychelles, while its users were predominantly Polish. This structure placed the exchange outside straightforward Polish regulatory reach while targeting a domestic user base, creating jurisdictional complexity that delayed and complicated the investigation. Offshore incorporation by a platform serving a concentrated domestic audience is a structural warning sign.
05
Social proof conferred by market rank
Being Poland's second-largest exchange by volume provided Bitmarket.pl with a form of legitimacy that required no independent verification. Users who might have scrutinised a smaller or newer platform extended trust to one whose trading volume implied institutional normalcy. Market rank and longevity are not indicators of financial integrity; in a market with no audit requirements, they are entirely compatible with persistent misrepresentation of the balance sheet.

Aftermath

Tobiasz Niemiro's death in July 2019 closed one branch of the legal investigation: no criminal proceedings against him were concluded. Marcin Aszkiełowicz was charged in September 2019 and faces a potential ten-year prison term. The case remained in the Polish judicial system in subsequent years, with proceedings complicated by the technical complexity of reconstructing transaction histories on an exchange whose infrastructure had ceased to operate. No conviction has been publicly confirmed in available reporting at the time this dossier was completed.

The Bitmarket.pl collapse and the Coinroom exit scam (which occurred in the same year — see VT-015) together accelerated Polish legislative attention to cryptocurrency regulation. Poland subsequently moved to implement the EU's anti-money-laundering directives as they applied to virtual asset service providers, establishing registration requirements for exchanges operating in the Polish market. These requirements came too late for the depositors of Bitmarket.pl, none of whom had access to any compensation mechanism.

No recovery of the estimated 2,300 BTC has been publicly documented. The case remains the largest documented Polish cryptocurrency exchange fraud by value of unrecovered deposits.

Lessons

  1. An exchange that inherited or carries an unresolved historical deficit and does not disclose it publicly is operating a concealed liability against which every subsequent deposit is at risk; depositors cannot price that risk without disclosure.
  2. Market rank and trading volume are not proxies for financial soundness; in unregulated markets they can coexist with structural insolvency for years.
  3. Offshore corporate registration by a platform serving a concentrated domestic customer base is a structural opacity indicator that warrants heightened scrutiny from both users and regulators, regardless of how normal the trading interface appears.
  4. Regulatory frameworks that explicitly exclude cryptocurrency custody from oversight requirements leave depositors without the protections — audits, capital minimums, segregated accounts — that apply to equivalent licensed financial services; the absence of regulatory coverage is itself a material risk that depositors should weigh.
  5. When an exchange closes citing a sudden liquidity event, the window between closure and investigation is the most critical period for preserving on-chain evidence of fund flows; users and regulators who act quickly to document wallet movements and transaction histories maximise the chances of establishing what happened.

References