# Not on the white list? Check whether it is a virtual account

> Polish telecoms, utilities and insurers issue a different account number to every customer. Those are not published, so a naive check calls them unlisted.

Canonical: https://vetthisvendor.com/guide/virtual-account-not-on-white-list
Published: 2026-08-12. Updated: 2026-08-12.
Author: Jose Pollman, VetThisVendor.

If you have checked a Polish supplier's bank account against the VAT white list, got **"not
on the list"**, and the supplier is a large, obviously legitimate company — a telecom, an
energy supplier, an insurer, a leasing company, a courier — then before you do anything
else, consider that you are probably looking at a **virtual account** (*rachunek wirtualny*).

Virtual accounts are not published on the white list individually. A checker that looks for
the exact number and stops there will report a perfectly compliant account as unlisted,
which is alarming, wrong, and easy to act on by mistake.

The [Polish white list check](/tools/polish-white-list) on this site accounts for them. If
you are checking by hand, or with a tool that does not, this is what is happening.

## What a virtual account is

A company that bills a great many customers needs to know who each incoming payment came
from. Matching by name and title is unreliable, so their bank issues a **distinct account
number per customer or per contract**, all of which funnel into one real settlement account.

You see this constantly on Polish invoices from:

- telecoms and internet providers
- electricity, gas and water suppliers
- insurers and leasing companies
- couriers and logistics firms
- housing associations and property managers

The number on your invoice is real, and paying it works. It is simply not an account in its
own right — it is an addressing label in front of one.

## Why the register cannot list them

The white list publishes the accounts that VAT-registered businesses have declared. A single
telecom might have several million virtual numbers in circulation. Publishing each one would
make the register enormous and would leak the size of a company's customer base.

So the Ministry of Finance publishes **masks** instead. A mask is a pattern describing which
positions in an account number are fixed for that bank and branch, which positions carry the
customer identifier, and which are free. A number matches the register if it fits one of the
published masks for an account that is on the list.

The practical consequence is the one that matters:

> An exact-match lookup against the published accounts will miss every virtual account,
> and report it as absent.

That is a false negative on the one check that carries a direct tax consequence — and it
falls on the payer, not the supplier. It is the single worst way to get this wrong, which is
why any checker worth using has to try the masks before it says "not listed".

## How a correct check works

Given a NIP and an account number, a complete check does this:

1. Look for the account itself among the accounts declared by that taxpayer.
2. If that misses, find the masks published for that bank and branch.
3. Rewrite the account against each mask in turn and look again.
4. Only when **every** applicable mask has missed is the pair genuinely absent.

Step 4 is the one people skip. A bank commonly publishes several masks for the same branch,
differing only in how many digits are given over to the customer identifier — the Ministry's
own worked example lists eight for a single branch. Stopping at the first miss produces
exactly the false "not listed" this guide exists to prevent.

## What to do when you get "not on the list"

**If the supplier is a large biller** — telecom, utility, insurer, leasing, courier — a
virtual account is the overwhelmingly likely explanation. Re-check with a tool that applies
the masks, or use the Ministry's own search, which resolves them.

**If the supplier is an ordinary trading company** and the account is still not listed after
masks have been tried, that is a real finding and worth stopping for. The usual innocent
explanations are:

- the account is genuinely new and has not been reported to the tax office yet;
- it is a personal or savings account rather than a business settlement account, which
  cannot appear on the list at all;
- it belongs to a factoring company or a different legal entity in the same group;
- the supplier is not an active VAT payer, so there is no list for them to be on.

None of those is a reason to pay. All of them are reasons to phone the supplier on a number
you already had and ask which account the invoice should be settled to — and then to check
that answer, rather than the one in the email.

## Why this matters more in Poland than anywhere else

For payments over 15,000 PLN between businesses, paying to an account that is not on the
white list on the day of payment can cost you the deduction and leave you jointly liable for
the supplier's VAT. The consequence sits with the buyer.

[The Polish white list](/guide/polish-white-list) covers what the register is, what the
liability actually amounts to, and what to do if the payment has already left. This guide is
only about the reason a legitimate account can look absent.

## What the white list still does not settle

Confirming an account is on the list — virtual or not — tells you that this account belongs
to this taxpayer. It does not tell you that the invoice is real, that the goods arrived, or
that the person who emailed it still works there.

The common fraud is a genuine supplier whose mailbox was compromised, where every check
passes and only the account details are wrong. If a payment request arrived by email,
[what "dkim=pass" really means](/guide/dkim-pass-does-not-mean-genuine) explains why the
message authenticating proves less than it appears to.