Former director of the Justice Fund Department, Urszula D. – accused, among others, for participation in an organized criminal group – on Tuesday, she refuted the prosecutor's allegations in court, arguing that she acted in accordance with the law when granting the grant to the Profeto Foundation. The trial continues on April 29.
On Tuesday, the District Court in Warsaw continued the process regarding the transfer of over PLN 66 million from the Justice Fund to the Profeto Foundation (of the almost PLN 100 million awarded). During a several-hour session, the court continued to receive explanations from one of the six defendants – Urszula D., former director of the Justice Fund Department.
Accusations of an organized criminal group
The National Prosecutor's Office, conducting a multi-threaded investigation into the rigging of competitions for money from the Justice Fund, assessed that Profeto received funds despite its failure to meet formal and substantive requirements. This money was used to launch the “Archipelago – islands free from violence” investment, the implementation of which – according to investigators – deviated from the objectives of the fund, including helping crime victims.
In relation to Urszula D. – a former official with many years of experience in public administration – the prosecutor's office formulated, among others, the charge of participating in an organized criminal group committing crimes against property, exceeding powers, certifying untruths and causing great damage to the State Treasury for personal and property benefits.
Who had the funds? The role of the minister and deputy minister
The former director of the Justice Fund Department, who pleads not guilty, gave extensive explanations on Tuesday. Their collection will be continued by the court at subsequent sessions – on April 29 and May 27 this year. Urszula S. also agreed to answer questions from the court and defense lawyers, but not the prosecutor's questions (like most of the other defendants).
I performed my tasks in accordance with applicable regulations – emphasized Urszula D. on Tuesday, who referred, among others, to: to the principles of operation of the Justice Fund, including the provisions of the Executive Penal Code regulating it.
She recalled that the fund is administered by the Minister of Justice, who determines the expenditure of funds within the objectives specified in the Act, including assistance to victims, post-penitentiary assistance and counteracting the causes of crime. She explained that it is the minister who gives instructions, and their implementation – including the payment of funds – takes place within the framework of concluded contracts specifying the task, the amount of the subsidy, the method and date of settlement and the possible return of unused funds.
She also noted that entities implementing the projects are selected through a competition. – It is very important to emphasize that all tasks performed by these entities fall within the competence of the fund administrator – she said. She added that the funds are not spent for the beneficiaries' own purposes, but only in accordance with the agreement and the objectives of the Justice Fund.
Behind the scenes of the competition and the “Archipelago” investment
Describing the competition procedure, Urszula D. pointed out that the committee prepares a summary report with recommendations, while the final decision rests with the administrator, who may change the list of entities, the amount of the subsidy or refuse to award it despite the recommendations.
She also recalled that the decision to grant a subsidy to the Profeto Foundation was made in 2020 by the then deputy head of the Ministry of Justice, Marcin Romanowski (also a suspect in the investigation, who has been using political asylum in Hungary since December 2024), and the contract was signed on April 15, 2020 – On that date, I was no longer an employee of the Ministry of Justice, Therefore, the prosecutor's office indicating in the indictment that I allowed the contract to be signed, regardless of whether it was justified or not, is absurd, she said.
Urszula D. also said that the prosecutor's office's allegation of misappropriation of funds is not supported by the regulations. She explained that funds could only be transferred on the basis of concluded contracts and documented accounting instructions.
The money was marked in very detail, and what's more, their spending was very strictly verified (…). No one transferred this subsidy to my account and I couldn't use it in any other way, she said.
Tomasz M.'s credibility is questionable
The former official also pointed to – in her opinion – manipulations by the prosecutor's office and questioned the credibility of the words of Tomasz M., a former official of the Justice Fund Department, who is also one of the suspects in the prosecutor's office investigation. His explanations, supported by, among others, recordings, constitute – in the opinion of the prosecutor's office – important evidence in the proceedings regarding this case.
In the final part, referring to the “Archipelag” investment, Urszula D. stated that she saw rooms intended to help injured people, and the claim that it was only supposed to be a media center is – in her opinion – an abuse. She also commented on the allegation regarding the Lux Veritatis Foundation's offer, denying that its formal assessment had exceeded its powers.
Co-defendants and subsequent hearing dates
The co-defendant in the case of subsidies to the Profeto Foundation is its former president – Fr. Michał Olszewski – who pleaded not guilty at the previous meeting and refused to provide explanations. However, he said in a statement that the allegations against him were incomprehensible. He also raised allegations of “harassment” of him and his family by the prosecutor's office and services, including the Internal Security Agency and the police.
The case regarding the Profeto Foundation stems from an indictment filed by the National Prosecutor's Office in February 2025 and covers one of the threads of the investigation regarding the Justice Fund. The proceedings concern the transfer of funds to the foundation despite – according to the prosecutor's office – failure to meet formal and substantive requirements. All defendants pleaded not guilty. (PAP)
nno/ ugw/
