The Real Cost of Manual KYC in Central Europe

A compliance analyst in Warsaw spends 45 to 90 minutes checking a single company before onboarding. At market rates, that is €30 to €60 per check - before the analyst has written a single word of the decision memo. For a mid-sized SME lender running 200 new checks a month, that is €6,000 to €12,000 spent every month on data gathering alone. Not analysis. Not decisions. Just clicking through government portals.

This is the hidden tax of manual KYC in Poland and across Central Eastern Europe, and most compliance teams have never calculated it.

Four Registries, Four Login Screens, One Analyst

Polish company onboarding requires checking at minimum four separate government data sources. Each has its own interface, its own session logic, and its own tolerance for friction.

For a standard Polish limited liability company (Sp. z o.o.) with a straightforward ownership structure, a trained analyst moves through these four sources in sequence. The problem is not that the portals are hard to use. It is that they were built for occasional, manual lookup - not for teams running dozens of checks per week.

Where the Time Goes

The 45-to-90-minute estimate is not an exaggeration. Here is where the time actually goes:

CRBR loads a CAPTCHA on every session and does not always surface complex ownership chains in a readable format. Analysts frequently cross-reference the KRS filing to understand intermediate holding structures. That cross-referencing is manual - the two systems have no connection.

KRZ is the most operationally difficult source. Session timeouts occur after short periods of inactivity. Search results for similar company names produce long lists with no disambiguation. For a common Polish company name - think anything with "Holding," "Group," or "Invest" in it - an analyst may spend 15 minutes confirming they are looking at the right entity before they can confirm it has no active proceedings.

KNF requires a separate search workflow structured for licensing lookups, not risk screening. An analyst must confirm both the absence of adverse entries and the presence of the correct authorization type - two different searches in the same portal.

By the time a complete, documented check is done and logged, 45 minutes is only achievable for clean cases with no ambiguities.

The Manual vs. Automated Comparison

The numbers at the bottom of that table carry the argument. Automated data gathering at under $0.02 per company versus €30 to €60 in analyst time per company is not a marginal improvement. It is a structural change in what a compliance team can accomplish with the same headcount.

What Automation Does Not Replace

The calculation above is sometimes used to argue that compliance can be "automated away." That framing is wrong.

Automated data pulls eliminate the gathering bottleneck. They do not replace analyst judgment. A CRBR result showing a beneficial owner in a high-risk jurisdiction is a data point. What it means for your specific decision - given the counterparty's business model, the transaction type, and your institution's risk appetite - requires a human call. A closed KRZ restructuring proceeding from four years ago is not the same signal as an active one opened last month. Automation surfaces both; distinguishing them is the analyst's job.

The correct framing: automation moves analysts from data gatherers to decision-makers. A team that previously spent 60% of KYC time on portal navigation can reallocate that capacity to quality review, escalation management, and documentation - the work regulators actually scrutinize.

The Audit Trail Problem

There is a second cost that rarely appears in KYC efficiency discussions: the cost of inadequate documentation.

When a regulatory examination asks a compliance team to reconstruct the basis for an onboarding decision made 18 months ago, a manual process typically produces browser screenshots, copied text in Word documents, and analyst notes of variable quality. Recreating the state of a CRBR or KRZ record at the exact time of the original check is often impossible.

Structured, automated data pulls solve this by default. Every query returns a timestamped, structured record. Audit reconstruction becomes a query, not an archaeology project. For institutions operating under AMLD6 or EBA guidelines, that is risk reduction with direct regulatory value.

Running the Numbers for Your Institution

Take your monthly KYC check volume. Multiply by 60 minutes (a conservative average per check). Divide by 60. Multiply by your blended analyst hourly cost. That is your monthly spend on data gathering before any analysis begins.

At 200 checks per month and a €40 blended rate: €8,000 per month, €96,000 per year - spent navigating portals. The data cost for that same volume, automated: under $4.

The case for automation is not to reduce headcount. It is to redirect €96,000 in annual analyst capacity toward work that compounds - deeper diligence on complex cases, stronger documentation, faster escalation on genuine risk signals.

Where to Start

For Polish company onboarding, two data sources account for most of the manual friction and most of the regulatory exposure: CRBR and KRZ.

The CRBR Beneficial Owners Scraper returns structured ownership data without the CAPTCHA friction: https://apify.com/regdata/crbr-beneficial-owners-scraper

The KRZ Debtor Scraper covers insolvency and restructuring proceedings - the most operationally difficult of the four manual checks: https://apify.com/regdata/krz-debtor-scraper

Both integrate into existing compliance workflows with no portal navigation, no session management, and no CAPTCHA handling required. Under $0.02 per company. Analyst savings measurable from week one.

The only question is how long your team keeps paying €30 to €60 per check for something that costs two cents to automate.