A scam invoice in KSeF: what to check and how to report it

Start by checking an unfamiliar KSeF invoice against your business’s actual purchases. If you have grounds to suspect abuse and the invoice meets the SCAM criteria, report it through Aplikacja Podatnika KSeF 2.0. An ordinary data mistake or a dispute with a supplier needs a different resolution. An invoice appearing in the system does not replace checking what your business ordered and received.

This guide is for invoice recipients operating in Poland, including sole traders with a JDG and people managing purchases for a company. We checked the procedure on 29 October 2026 against the Ministry of Finance’s August handbooks. The aim is to organise evidence before making separate decisions about reporting, payment and accounting treatment.

What should you check first?

Do not follow a payment link merely because a message mentions KSeF. Open the system or your accounting software through your usual trusted route and locate the invoice. Check the seller, the buyer’s NIP, date, line items, amount and KSeF number. The KSeF identifier is separate from the seller’s own invoice number.

Next, establish who could have made the purchase. As a sole trader, check subscriptions and orders placed in earlier months. In a company, ask the person responsible for purchasing and the team using the service. An unfamiliar legal name may belong to a brand you recognise. Failing to find an order in one email inbox does not establish that no transaction occurred.

Record what you checked, who responded and which records support the answer. If the payment deadline is approaching, bring the matter to the person approving payments. The presence of a document in an invoice list should not take the place of that decision.

Is it SCAM, an error or a commercial dispute?

This distinction determines the next step. Chapter 7 of the Ministry of Finance’s KSeF handbook, part III, separates abuse from errors and disagreements about real transactions. An invoice you disagree with does not automatically qualify for the SCAM reporting channel.

The Ministry also excludes returned transactions and real, paid purchases made by someone else using a business’s details from this category. That does not establish that every such invoice is correct. It means the SCAM channel is not a way to resolve every invoice problem.

Do not use an abuse report simply to make a supplier respond to a complaint. Identify the underlying issue first. “We did not order this service, and the person responsible for purchasing has checked this” describes a different finding from “The service was delivered, but we think the price is too high.”

What evidence should you prepare?

Create a small record that lets you revisit the matter without reconstructing every conversation:

1. The specific invoice: KSeF number, seller’s invoice number, date and amount.
2. Its connection to the business: the orders, agreements and deliveries you checked.
3. Internal checks: who confirmed or ruled out the purchase.
4. Supplier correspondence: the date, channel and response, if contact took place.
5. Follow-up responsibilities: who will check payment and the accounting entry.

Verify the supplier’s contact details independently, for example against an existing agreement. Do not base the entire check on a telephone number supplied in the suspicious message. Separate confirmed information from assumptions. If something remains unchecked, record that gap rather than filling it with a confident answer.

This record is useful even if the matter turns out to be a normal mistake. It gives the next person handling the invoice a clear explanation of why it was questioned and what still needs to happen.

How do you submit a report in the KSeF application?

The reporting function is available to a person with invoice-access permissions in the relevant context, such as the buyer or an authorised employee. It is not a way for a seller to report their own invoice. If you handle several businesses, check that you are acting in the correct NIP context.

The KSeF application manual, version 2.6, section 5.3.3, describes these steps. The Polish interface labels below help you find the controls:

1. Open the received invoice’s details from the invoice list.
2. Select Zgłoszenie nadużycia (report abuse).
3. Read the displayed SCAM definition and acknowledge that you have read it.
4. Choose the reason and answer the preliminary questions using the facts you established.
5. If the application allows you to continue, complete Opis zgłoszenia (report description), read the declaration and confirm it only if you can do so accurately.
6. Review the content, select Wyślij zgłoszenie (send report) and retain the confirmation that it was sent to KAS, Poland’s National Revenue Administration.

If your answers show that the invoice does not meet the definition, the application ends this reporting route. Do not change the answers just to get through the form. Each report concerns one invoice; it is not a bulk report for an entire list.

The Ministry’s announcement introducing reporting in the application says that these reports should no longer be sent through the old contact form. Follow the current application procedure instead of an earlier saved instruction about that form.

An example: similar invoices, different outcomes

This is an illustrative example, not a Norman customer story. A business receives an invoice for a “business listing service” from an unfamiliar seller. The owner checks orders, agreements and the people authorised to make purchases. Nobody ordered or received the service, yet the invoice demands payment. Those findings provide a reason to assess the SCAM procedure and describe the suspicion using specific facts.

Another owner receives an unfamiliar invoice for an internet service. Checking the agreement reveals that it renews an existing subscription. The owner disputes the price, but the service is being provided. The next step is to clarify the agreement with the seller. Disagreement about a renewal does not, by itself, turn it into a SCAM report.

Both cases started with the same observation: “I do not recognise this invoice.” Checking the transaction revealed the difference. An automatic fraud label based only on the unfamiliar supplier name would have gone beyond the available evidence.

Where can AI and Norman help?

AI can help organise information and identify gaps in a written account. For example: “Separate confirmed facts, unresolved questions and documents still to check. Do not add findings I have not supplied.” Compare the result with your source documents. This supports preparation; it does not decide whether fraud occurred.

In Norman, start with the document and its linked accounting operation. The expenses and documents guide explains where to review extracted invoice details and payment matching. Compare those details with the order and actual supply. Reading an amount correctly or finding a matching payment does not, by itself, establish that the purchase is valid.

Check the actual accounting entry too. Norman’s guide explains that an operation with the required details goes into KPiR and JPK_V7 immediately; the completed marker records your review. An operation missing its required category or date waits for those details. Do not assume that leaving an operation unmarked has prevented it from being recorded. If the document is in doubt, check with the person responsible for accounting whether and how it has been included. A Polish JDG and a sp. z o.o. use different accounting rules, so do not transfer one entity’s treatment to the other.

What should you retain after reporting?

Keep the invoice, your findings and the submission confirmation together, with a named person responsible for follow-up. Confirmation of transmission to KAS proves that this step happened. It is not the authority’s conclusion about the invoice. The Ministry’s handbook states that the outcome of its verification is not shared with the reporting taxpayer because of tax confidentiality.

Review payment and accounting separately. Do not treat an abuse report as an instruction to reverse a transfer or correct a tax return. If you later find evidence of a real purchase, revisit the case: the application provides a withdrawal procedure with a required explanation. Retain that explanation too, so that anyone taking over the records can understand why your assessment changed.