Attachment of a Foreign Debtor’s Receivables in Turkey

1) Why Receivable Attachment Is Often the Fastest Way to Collect from a Foreign Debtor

Cross-border enforcement becomes difficult the moment the debtor is outside your physical and procedural reach. You may have a strong claim, a signed contract, even an arbitral award or judgment—yet collection remains uncertain if the debtor’s assets are abroad or intentionally hidden.

In Turkish practice, one of the most effective pressure points is not the foreign debtor’s body or domicile, but the foreign debtor’s cashflow connections inside Turkey. If the debtor is owed money by someone in Turkey—or keeps funds in Turkey through banks, counterparties, tenants, employers, or payment intermediaries—Turkish enforcement law offers a direct mechanism to capture that value.

This is the core logic of attachment of receivables (garnishment): you do not chase the debtor everywhere; you intercept what is coming to the debtor in Turkey and redirect it into the enforcement file.

Typical “receivable targets” inside Turkey include:

• balances in Turkish bank accounts (TRY and foreign currency),
• payments due from Turkish customers under invoices or supply contracts,
• rent owed by tenants,
• salary/wage receivables (within statutory limitations),
• dividends or profit distributions,
• progress payments due to contractors/subcontractors,
• insurance payouts, refunds, commissions, royalties,
• receivables arising from e-commerce, agency, distribution, or platform arrangements.

The legal engine enabling this is İcra ve İflas Kanunu (İİK) Article 89, which regulates third-party attachment through the system known in practice as haciz ihbarnamesi (garnishment notices).

---

2) The Legal Anatomy: How İİK Article 89 Works in Plain English

2.1. The parties in a garnishment file

Receivable attachment always has three actors:

1. Creditor (you) – the person pursuing the enforcement
2. Debtor (foreign debtor) – the person who owes you
3. Third party (the “third-party debtor”) – the person in Turkey who owes money to your debtor (or holds an asset that must be paid/returned to your debtor)

That third party might be a bank, a Turkish company, a tenant, an employer, a main contractor, an insurer, or a payment intermediary.

2.2. What the garnishment notice achieves

Once the enforcement office serves the garnishment notice on the third party:

• The third party is warned not to pay your debtor anymore.
• The third party is compelled to declare whether it owes money to your debtor (or holds the debtor’s assets).
• If the third party admits the debt, payment is redirected to the enforcement office.
• If the third party ignores the notice or answers falsely, it faces escalating consequences.

2.3. The three-step notice escalation (89/1–89/3)

The system is designed as an escalation ladder:

• First notice (commonly called 89/1): prompts disclosure and compliance.
• Second notice (89/2): increases pressure if the third party fails to object properly or on time.
• Third notice (89/3): creates the strongest procedural posture and may expose the third party to being pursued as if it were directly responsible within the enforcement framework.

This staged structure is why Turkish receivable garnishment is so effective against regulated institutions like banks and against commercial counterparties that prioritize legal certainty.

2.4. The “false objection” problem (89/4 and related remedies)

A third party may try to escape by claiming: “We owe nothing.” If that objection is later proven untrue, the law provides routes for the creditor to seek remedies that may include compensation exposure for the third party under the enforcement/litigation mechanism. Practically, this is your leverage: third parties dislike the risk of being accused of making a false declaration in a legally formal process.

---

3) What Exactly Can Be Attached? Understanding “Receivables” Broadly

A receivable is any monetary claim or payment right that the debtor has against someone else. For garnishment purposes, the receivable can be:

• due and payable now (e.g., invoice matured),
• not yet due but legally existing (e.g., installment due next month),
• conditional (e.g., payment after acceptance; more complex but not impossible),
• partially disputed (often requiring careful procedural planning).

3.1. Common attachable categories

• Bank deposits and account balances
• Commercial invoices and contract receivables
• Lease receivables (rent)
• Wage receivables (subject to protective limitations)
• Dividend/profit share receivables
• Insurance payouts (after claim becomes payable)
• Refunds (tax refunds, security deposits, guarantee returns—depending on conditions)

3.2. Receivables that cause friction

Some receivables are “attachable in theory” but tough in practice:

• receivables dependent on future performance,
• receivables subject to netting, set-off, or counterclaims,
• receivables that are secured/pledged to someone else,
• receivables tied to confidential platform arrangements where the third party claims lack of identification.

In such cases, the enforcement strategy should be evidence-heavy and synchronized with litigation options.

---

4) The Cross-Border Dimension: What Changes When the Debtor Is Foreign?

4.1. What usually does NOT change

If the third party is in Turkey, Turkish enforcement tools can still reach the receivable. The debtor’s nationality alone does not immunize the receivable. What matters is that the third party can be served and compelled within Turkey’s legal system.

4.2. What DOES change (practically)

Foreign debtor files add complexity in three areas:

1. Service abroad and notification discipline
   If you need to serve enforcement documents to the debtor abroad (especially in contested steps), you must respect international service channels, translations, and timing. Procedural defects here can become the debtor’s strongest defense.
2. Identity precision
   Foreign companies may have multiple trade names; foreign individuals may have different transliterations. Turkish enforcement offices and third parties operate best when the debtor is precisely identified.
3. Asset mapping reliance
   Because the debtor is outside reach, you lean more heavily on third-party targets (banks, customers, tenants). That makes your pre-enforcement investigation and evidence strategy critical.

---

5) Choosing Your Entry Route: With Judgment vs Without Judgment

5.1. Enforcement with a Turkish judgment / enforceable instrument

If you already have an enforceable instrument, you typically enjoy stronger procedural footing and fewer defense angles.

This route is common when:

• you already litigated in Turkey,
• you have a Turkish enforceable document,
• you obtained recognition/enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitral award where required.

5.2. Enforcement without judgment (ilamsız icra)

This route is often chosen for speed in commercial claims. The trade-off is the debtor may object, converting speed into a procedural battle. For foreign debtors, objections can be paired with service arguments, so you must execute service correctly and keep the file clean.

5.3. The “pressure first” reality

In many commercial disputes, creditors use receivable garnishment as early leverage. If bank accounts or key customers are garnished, settlement dynamics shift quickly. Even if litigation continues, cashflow interception often forces meaningful engagement.

---

6) Step-by-Step: How to Garnish a Foreign Debtor’s Receivables in Turkey

Step 1 — Identify the third party and the receivable relationship

This is where most files succeed or fail.

Minimum checklist:

• Third party’s full legal title, tax number (VKN), MERSİS (if applicable), and address
• Contract/invoice/lease/employment relation showing why money is owed
• Estimated receivable amount, currency, maturity date
• Supporting documents (invoices, correspondence, delivery acceptance, lease schedule, bank info)

If the third party is a bank, you may not need to specify each account number; however, providing as much identification as possible reduces “we cannot match the customer” responses.

Step 2 — Open the enforcement file and secure a basis to garnish

You commence enforcement through an enforcement office that fits your case’s procedural map (depending on your enforcement route, jurisdictional links, and practical considerations).

The exact “best office” can differ by case. What matters is building a defensible narrative: why this enforcement office is competent, and why the file is not artificially created. In disputed cases, sloppy selection can invite competence objections and delays.

Step 3 — Petition for attachment of the receivable and issuance of the 89/1 notice

Your petition should be drafted like a mini-brief:

• identify debtor and third party precisely,
• state the enforcement amount (principal + interest + costs),
• request garnishment of all receivables the debtor has from that third party (present and future, if legally permitted),
• request issuance and service of Article 89 notices.

Step 4 — Track service and deadlines meticulously

The power of Article 89 depends on proper service and deadline discipline. If service is defective, the third party’s “late objection” becomes arguable. If deadlines are miscalculated, you lose escalation momentum.

Your operations checklist:

• date of service on third party,
• the response deadline,
• whether response is properly submitted and reasoned,
• whether you must escalate to the second notice.

Step 5 — Evaluate the third party’s response (or silence)

Possible third-party outcomes:

1. Admission: “Yes, we owe the debtor. We will pay the enforcement office.”
2. Denial: “We owe nothing.”
3. Qualified statement: “We owe, but not due / set-off exists / debt is disputed.”
4. Silence: no response.

From a creditor perspective:

• Admission = immediate collection potential.
• Denial/qualified = evidence battle, possibly leading to litigation.
• Silence = escalation path, which can become the strongest posture.

Step 6 — Escalate to 89/2 and 89/3 when appropriate

If the third party fails to object in time or fails to comply, you request the second and then third notices in sequence.

The creditor’s goal is not “sending paper.” The goal is to reach the stage where the third party either:

• pays into the file, or
• faces meaningful legal exposure for non-compliance / false declaration.

Step 7 — Convert the dispute into the right type of lawsuit when needed

When the third party denies the receivable, you must decide quickly:

• Are we dealing with a genuine absence of debt?
• Or a tactical denial to protect the debtor relationship?
• Do we have documentary proof strong enough to push a compensation-style remedy?
• Should we file a declaratory/compensation action, or pressure through continued enforcement steps?

Your choice depends on evidence and timeline.

---

7) Special Focus: Garnishing Turkish Banks and Financial Institutions

Banks are the most frequent and most effective third-party targets.

7.1. Why bank garnishment is powerful

• Funds are liquid and collectible.
• Banks are compliance-driven and tend to respond systematically.
• Even if the debtor is foreign, banks operating in Turkey are subject to Turkish enforcement notices.

7.2. Practical scope: “All branches and all accounts”

In practice, creditors often request garnishment directed broadly to the bank with the debtor’s identity details, aiming to capture:

• TRY accounts,
• foreign currency accounts,
• time deposits,
• investment accounts (subject to product type),
• receivables from the bank to the debtor.

However, banks may answer narrowly if identity data is insufficient. The creditor should provide:

• correct full name (and previous names if any),
• passport number or foreign identification details when available,
• trade registry data for foreign companies (registration number, country, address),
• Turkish tax number if existing.

7.3. Common bank responses and how to read them

• “No record found” → identity mismatch or bank does not have a relationship; verify transliteration and documents.
• “Accounts exist but balance is zero” → consider repeated garnishment, other banks, and commercial counterparties.
• “Funds are blocked / pledged / legally restricted” → investigate pledge, lien, other attachments, or statutory blocks.
• “Receivable not due / time deposit maturity” → you may still freeze the right to payment and wait for maturity, depending on conditions.

7.4. Layering strategy: banks + customers + tenants

A strong cross-border file usually uses multiple third-party targets at once:

• garnish banks for immediate liquidity,
• garnish key customers for high-value receivables,
• garnish tenants for steady monthly payments.

This transforms the enforcement file from a single bet into a diversified recovery plan.

---

8) Third-Party Defenses: Set-Off, Not Due Yet, Counterclaims, and “We Owe Nothing”

Third parties often respond with defenses that appear technical but are predictable.

8.1. “We owe nothing”

This may be true—or tactical.

Creditor response approach:

• immediately request documentation through procedural means where available,
• compare with your contracts, invoices, delivery evidence, acceptance minutes,
• evaluate whether the denial contradicts publicly observable conduct (ongoing supply, payments historically made, etc.),
• prepare for litigation if your evidence is strong.

8.2. “Not due yet”

Not-due receivables can still be valuable because garnishment can function like a freeze:

• you prevent payment to the debtor,
• you position yourself to collect when maturity arrives.

The key is drafting the garnishment request to cover future maturity clearly, while staying within enforceable limits.

8.3. “Set-off / netting”

Third parties sometimes claim they will set off their own claim against the debtor, reducing or eliminating the garnished receivable.

Creditor analysis points:

• Is the set-off claim genuine, documented, and mature?
• Was it created suspiciously after enforcement began?
• Does the contract allow unilateral netting?
• Is the set-off claim itself disputed or conditional?

A sophisticated creditor strategy challenges abusive set-offs through timing, documentation scrutiny, and, when necessary, targeted litigation.

8.4. “Confidentiality” excuses

Third parties sometimes hide behind confidentiality or banking secrecy as a reason not to provide information. In enforcement, the legal duty to comply with the formal notice generally overrides “comfort-based” excuses. Your petitions should politely but firmly anchor the request in the enforcement office’s authority and the third party’s duty to respond within the lawful framework.

---

9) When the Third Party Lies: How to Attack a False Objection

In cross-border practice, the most frustrating scenario is the “friendly third party” who tries to protect the debtor by denying obvious debt.

Your response should be structured:

9.1. Build proof like a litigation file, not like an enforcement file

To prove a false objection, you need evidence that would survive judicial scrutiny:

• signed contract terms,
• invoices and delivery/acceptance documents,
• correspondence showing acknowledgment,
• account statements, partial payments history,
• witness or expert evidence if necessary (but documents are king).

9.2. Timing strategy matters

Delay weakens leverage. The longer you wait after a denial, the more the third party can restructure the relationship, create paper trails, or claim later events changed the debt status.

9.3. Choose the right procedural weapon

Depending on your case structure, you may pursue:

• an action aimed at establishing the existence of the receivable,
• a claim for damages/compensation exposure linked to a false declaration,
• enforcement-court applications to correct procedural resistance.

The best choice depends on your evidence and how the denial is framed.

---

10) Service Abroad and Translation: The Most Common Cause of Cross-Border Failure

For foreign debtors, the biggest procedural risk is often not substantive law—it is service.

10.1. Why service matters even when you target third parties

Even if your real target is the third party, the debtor’s procedural rights can still matter for challenges, objections, and later litigation. Defective service can become the debtor’s “reset button.”

10.2. Best practices for service discipline

• Verify the debtor’s foreign address with reliable sources (contracts, registries, recent correspondence).
• Use accurate transliteration and consistent spelling.
• Translate documents properly when required.
• Track service routes and timelines realistically (international service is slower than domestic).
• Avoid shortcuts that may be attacked as legally invalid for foreign addressees.

10.3. Practical drafting tip

Whenever the debtor is foreign, draft your enforcement and garnishment petitions with an “audit mindset”:

• assume every procedural step will be challenged,
• assume the court will inspect service details,
• make your file “boring and clean,” because clean files win faster.

---

11) Typical Garnishment Scenarios (and How to Handle Each)

Scenario A: Foreign debtor has Turkish customers (invoices)

Goal: intercept payments under supply/service contracts.

Key tactics:

• garnish the customer with precise legal title and address,
• attach the full receivable category (invoice-based debt, contract-based payments),
• submit invoice set and delivery evidence as support,
• if denial comes, file swiftly with strong documentary proof.

Scenario B: Foreign debtor collects rent in Turkey

Goal: redirect monthly rent to the enforcement file.

Key tactics:

• garnish the tenant (third party),
• identify the lease (start date, rent amount, payment day),
• request ongoing monthly redirection until the debt is paid,
• watch for tenant defenses: “lease terminated,” “rent paid in advance,” “security deposit set-off.”

Scenario C: Foreign debtor has funds in Turkish banks

Goal: freeze and collect balances immediately.

Key tactics:

• target multiple banks simultaneously,
• provide identity data meticulously,
• follow up with second/third notices when needed,
• consider repeated garnishment if balances fluctuate.

Scenario D: Foreign debtor is paid through an intermediary (agency/platform)

Goal: attach the intermediary’s payment obligations.

Key tactics:

• identify the payment flow mechanism,
• garnish the intermediary as third party,
• define the receivable category broadly: commissions, proceeds, settlement payments,
• anticipate “we are not debtor; we are intermediary” defenses and counter with contract/payment structure.

Scenario E: Salary receivable (limited by protective rules)

Goal: attach permissible portion of wages.

Key tactics:

• garnish employer,
• respect statutory limitations (wage protections),
• ensure amounts are calculated safely to avoid procedural pushback.

---

12) Drafting Your Petition: What to Include to Maximize Success

A high-performing garnishment petition is precise, structured, and evidence-backed.

12.1. Essential elements

• Enforcement file reference
• Full identity of foreign debtor (passport/registry, address, trade name variations)
• Full identity of third party (legal title, tax ID, address)
• Legal basis: attachment of receivables via Article 89 notices
• Amount breakdown: principal, interest, costs
• Request for issuance and service of 89/1 (and escalation if needed)
• Clear instruction: third party must not pay debtor; must pay enforcement office or object legally

12.2. Evidence bundle (attach what you can)

• contract / invoice set
• lease agreement / rent schedule
• delivery documents / acceptance records
• correspondence acknowledging debt
• bank or payment info where available
• any public record establishing relationship (trade registry details, tender documents, etc.)

12.3. Drafting language that reduces denials

Denials often exploit ambiguity. Reduce ambiguity by stating:

• the contractual source of receivable,
• the approximate amount,
• the payment schedule,
• the fact that payment to debtor after service may expose the third party to liability.

This is not about aggression; it is about clarity that forces a serious response.

---

13) Risk Management: Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Pitfall 1: Wrong third party name or address

A “wrongly served” notice can be useless. Verify trade registry name and address.

Pitfall 2: Identity mismatch for foreign individuals

Transliteration differences can cause “no record found.” Use passport data and alternative spellings if needed.

Pitfall 3: Overstating the receivable amount

If you claim wildly inflated amounts, the third party will be more likely to object. Claim what you can justify and keep interest calculations defensible.

Pitfall 4: Ignoring set-off risk

If the third party has a plausible counterclaim, anticipate it and prepare documentary counters.

Pitfall 5: Service abroad shortcuts

Do not gamble on fragile service methods. Cross-border files punish procedural shortcuts.

Pitfall 6: Waiting too long after a denial

Time is leverage. If you have documents, act promptly to transform the denial into litigation risk for the third party.