1) Introduction: why the “foreign third party” factor is not a detail—but the whole case
In Turkish enforcement practice, haciz ihbarnamesi (garnishment notices issued under İİK Article 89) are among the most effective tools to reach a debtor’s receivables or assets held by third persons. Many files are collected not by chasing the debtor directly, but by intercepting the debtor’s incoming cash flow from third parties—banks, employers, customers, payment institutions, insurers, tenants, and commercial counterparties.
However, once the third party is foreign, the same instrument can become either:
- a precision tool (if the foreign third party has a serviceable presence and attachable exposure in Türkiye), or
- a procedural trap (if service, jurisdictional reach, or proof problems derail the process).
Foreignness affects three layers at once:
- Notification/service (because all timelines and consequences in İİK 89 hinge on valid service),
- Substantive proof (because the receivable may be disputed, foreign-law governed, or evidenced abroad), and
- Enforceability (because a Turkish enforcement office cannot practically coerce a third party that has no presence or assets in Türkiye).
This article explains, in a structured and practice-driven way, what changes when the third party is foreign, what the Turkish system can and cannot do, and how creditors and foreign third parties should manage risk.
2) The legal core: what İİK 89 is designed to do
2.1. The concept in one sentence
A haciz ihbarnamesi is an enforcement-office notice that aims to secure and collect the debtor’s receivable from a third party by compelling the third party to either (i) pay the attached amount to the enforcement office, or (ii) object within a strict time limit, or (iii) face escalating civil (and sometimes criminal) consequences.
2.2. The three-step structure (practical overview)
Although technical details vary by practice, the system is commonly understood as:
- First notice (89/1): Third party is asked to declare whether it owes the debtor or holds debtor’s assets; objection must be made promptly (often within 7 days once service is valid).
- Second notice: If no valid objection is filed, the process escalates and the third party is again urged to comply; silence creates heavier presumptions and procedural consequences.
- Third notice: The third party is warned of intensified outcomes and, in many cases, is directed toward either payment/delivery or a judicial action (such as a negative declaratory action) to avoid liability.
The precise wording and attachments issued by the enforcement office may differ, but the functional reality is stable: service triggers a short deadline; silence is dangerous; objection must be timely and consistent; and dispute often moves into court as 89/4 litigation or as third-party declaratory proceedings.
3) “Foreign third party” is not one scenario—classify your case first
Before drafting a single petition or objection, you should classify the foreign element correctly. The legal risks and the best strategy depend heavily on which of these situations you are in.
Scenario A — Foreign third party, but located in Türkiye (or has a Turkish presence)
Examples:
- A foreign company with a Turkish branch/office,
- A multinational bank operating in Türkiye,
- A foreign national resident in Türkiye with a Turkish address.
Key implication: Turkish service is usually feasible, and Turkish enforcement consequences can operate normally.
Scenario B — Foreign third party abroad, with no effective Turkish presence
Examples:
- A foreign employer located abroad,
- A foreign fintech/payment platform without a Turkish entity,
- A foreign company with no branch/representative office in Türkiye.
Key implication: Service abroad becomes the first barrier; enforceability becomes the second.
Scenario C — Hybrid: foreign third party + receivable governed by foreign law / payable abroad
Examples:
- Debtor’s receivable is based on a foreign-law contract,
- Payment location is abroad,
- Evidence and accounting are maintained outside Türkiye.
Key implication: even if service is valid, proof becomes more complex and disputes are more likely.
4) The territorial reality: what Turkish enforcement can reach (and what it cannot)
A Turkish enforcement office is powerful within Türkiye, but its coercive tools are fundamentally territorial. That creates a practical rule of thumb:
If the foreign third party has a meaningful Turkish nexus (serviceable presence, assets, receivables payable in Türkiye), İİK 89 can be highly effective. If it does not, the file may turn into cross-border litigation and foreign enforcement.
This matters because creditors often assume that “sending an ihbarname to a foreign company” automatically produces payment. In reality, the process is only as strong as:
- the validity of service, and
- the availability of leverage (assets, operations, banking, or receivables in Türkiye).
5) Service of haciz ihbarnameleri when the third party is foreign
Service is the single most important procedural issue in foreign-third-party garnishment practice because deadlines and presumptions run from valid service.
5.1. When the third party is foreign but has a Turkish address
If the foreign third party has a real address in Türkiye (residence, branch, place of business), service generally proceeds under ordinary Turkish notification rules.
Practical points:
- Always ensure the address is traceable and serviceable.
- For companies, target the legally valid service address and correct trade registry details.
- If the third party is a regulated entity (bank/payment institution), consider whether service must be directed to a specific unit or registered headquarters.
5.2. When the third party is abroad
If the third party has no serviceable address in Türkiye, service abroad is typically required. This is where time, cost, and formalities increase.
Expect these practical requirements:
- formal international channels (which may differ depending on treaties and the destination country),
- possible translation requirements,
- longer timeframes before service is completed,
- stricter scrutiny in later disputes (because the third party will often challenge service if anything looks irregular).
Risk: If service is defective, the third party can argue that the response deadline never started, and the creditor’s escalation steps may become vulnerable.
5.3. E-notification and foreign entities
In some cases, entities operating in Türkiye may be subject to electronic notification mechanisms. The “foreign” label does not automatically exempt them if they are registered and obligated under Turkish procedural frameworks. The key question is not nationality—it is whether the entity is within the scope of Turkey’s notification infrastructure.
5.4. Best practice for creditors: build a “service file”
When the third party is foreign, the creditor should treat service as a mini-case within the case:
- corporate registry extracts and branch documents,
- proof of addresses and official communications,
- translations where necessary,
- a clear timeline documenting each notification step.
This is not bureaucracy. It becomes decisive evidence if the matter later moves into 89/4 litigation or if the third party challenges procedural validity.
6) What exactly is attached in cross-border context: the receivable, its situs, and payment location
A haciz ihbarnamesi targets the debtor’s receivable (or debtor’s assets held by third party). With foreign elements, a recurring dispute is whether the receivable can be treated as “reachable” by Turkish enforcement.
While Turkish enforcement law governs the attachment mechanism, the receivable itself may be shaped by:
- the underlying contract (possibly foreign-law governed),
- payment location (Türkiye vs abroad),
- whether the receivable is due/matured,
- whether the receivable is contingent or disputed,
- whether there are set-off rights, assignments, pledges, or competing claims.
Practical approach: even if you can issue an ihbarname, you must be ready to prove that the debtor truly has a receivable against that third party, and that it was legally attachable at the relevant time.
7) The third party’s response options and the special risks for foreign third parties
A foreign third party served with a Turkish ihbarname is often unfamiliar with the mechanism and may react incorrectly. The most common risk is silence—either because the notice is misunderstood, or because the company assumes it has “no obligation in Turkey.”
That assumption can be costly if service is valid and the entity has Turkish exposure.
7.1. Timely objection is not optional—what a proper objection should cover
A defensive response usually needs to address, in a structured way:
- Whether the third party owes the debtor anything,
- If yes, whether the debt is due/matured,
- Whether the third party holds any debtor assets,
- Whether there are legal defenses (set-off, non-performance, cancellation, dispute, assignment, pledge),
- Whether the amount is certain,
- Whether there are competing attachments or restrictions.
Foreign entities should avoid generic denials with no factual structure. In later litigation, vague objections often backfire.
7.2. Consistency matters across notices and proceedings
If the third party objects in the first stage but later communicates inconsistently (or pays the debtor after claiming “no debt”), that inconsistency can trigger significant exposure. Foreign entities should implement an internal “litigation hold” and prevent payments to the debtor until the issue is clarified.
7.3. The “double payment” fear is real
Foreign third parties often fear paying in Turkey and later facing a claim abroad by the debtor. The practical solution is to treat payment into the enforcement office (where lawful and required) as a protective mechanism, but only after confirming:
- service validity,
- competent enforcement office,
- attachment scope and amount,
- internal authority approvals and documentation.
Where uncertainty persists, a carefully prepared objection and, if necessary, court action may be safer than informal payment.
8) Consequences of silence or non-response: why foreign third parties can end up “liable as if debtor”
If a foreign third party fails to respond within the prescribed time after valid service, the enforcement system can treat the third party as if it:
- holds the debtor’s assets, or
- is responsible to pay the attached receivable amount (depending on the notice stage and case structure).
In practice, this can lead to:
- escalation to further notices,
- procedural presumptions against the third party,
- litigation exposure (including compensation),
- and in certain settings, criminal complaint risks if false statements are made.
Important nuance: A foreign third party with no Turkish presence may still ignore the notice in practice—but if it later enters Türkiye with assets, or if it has ongoing Turkish business, that silence can resurface as leverage.
9) The creditor’s main weapon against objection: the 89/4 compensation action (and why foreign element makes proof harder)
When a third party objects, the creditor may seek to challenge the truthfulness and validity of that objection using İİK 89/4 mechanisms, commonly framed as a compensation-based action.
9.1. What the creditor must prove (practical burden)
In an 89/4 posture, the creditor’s real problem is evidence. The creditor typically needs to show, convincingly and with documents, that:
- At the relevant time (usually the service date), the debtor had an actual receivable against the third party,
- The receivable was attachable and sufficiently determinable,
- The third party’s statement/objection was inconsistent with reality.
Foreign element complicates this because:
- key documents may be abroad,
- accounting records may be in foreign systems,
- contract language may require translation,
- the receivable may be governed by foreign law,
- witnesses and counterparties may be abroad.
9.2. Evidence strategy for the creditor in foreign cases
A creditor who anticipates an objection should prepare the 89/4 file from day one:
- underlying contract and amendments,
- invoices, delivery proofs, acceptance protocols, service completion certificates,
- correspondence acknowledging debt,
- payment schedules and bank traces,
- reconciliations and statements,
- corporate documents linking the third party to the obligation (avoid “wrong entity” risk in group companies).
Where documents originate abroad, plan early for:
- certified translations,
- authentication formalities where needed,
- a coherent exhibit narrative (judges respond to structured timelines).
9.3. Group companies and “wrong target” risk
A frequent creditor mistake is serving the wrong company in a corporate group (parent vs subsidiary vs affiliate). In foreign structures, this is even more common.
The creditor must correctly identify:
- who is contractually obligated,
- who actually owes the debtor,
- whether the Turkish entity is the debtor of the receivable or merely a related company.
Serving the wrong entity can create wasted months and procedural vulnerability.
10) Negative declaratory action (menfi tespit) and the third party’s judicial defenses
Foreign third parties sometimes face a dilemma after receiving later-stage notices: either comply or go to court to prevent liability.
A typical defensive route is a negative declaratory action seeking a determination that:
- the third party does not owe the debtor, or
- the alleged receivable does not exist, is not due, or is not attachable as claimed.
Foreign third parties should consider judicial defense especially where:
- service is contested,
- the underlying receivable is complex or conditional,
- payment would create double exposure across jurisdictions,
- there is a risk of reputational or compliance harm.
11) Criminal exposure for foreign third parties: false statements can trigger enforcement-related complaints
Foreign third parties often treat the response as a “business letter.” In Turkish enforcement law, however, responding with false information can create serious risk under enforcement-related criminal provisions (commonly discussed under İİK Article 338 in practice).
This does not mean every disputed statement is criminal. It means:
- if the third party makes a knowingly untrue declaration to the enforcement authority, and
- the legal elements and complaint procedure are satisfied,
then criminal exposure may arise.
Practical compliance tip for foreign entities:
If you genuinely do not know whether a debt exists (because of internal fragmentation), do not guess. Conduct a quick internal investigation and respond with a precise, documented position. If needed, respond within time with a structured objection and reserve rights, rather than making absolute statements without verification.
12) Cross-border enforceability: what happens if the third party has no assets in Türkiye?
This is the decisive commercial question: can you actually collect?
If the foreign third party has no assets or operations in Türkiye, a Turkish enforcement office has limited practical leverage. Even if you obtain:
- procedural presumptions through silence, or
- a Turkish court decision through 89/4-related litigation,
you may still need to:
- identify assets in Türkiye (if any exist), or
- pursue recognition and enforcement in the foreign third party’s jurisdiction.
That second path depends on:
- the foreign state’s rules on recognition/exequatur,
- service and due process standards,
- public policy filters,
- reciprocity or treaty frameworks (where relevant).
Practical advice for creditors:
Before investing heavily in Turkish litigation against a foreign third party with no Turkish assets, perform an “enforceability audit”:
- Does the third party have Turkish receivables, contracts, or bank relationships?
- Does it have local distributors, stock, logistics operations, or a branch?
- Is there a Turkish counterparty that owes money to that foreign third party (a second-layer attachment possibility)?
- Is the third party likely to have business travel/assets in Türkiye?
Sometimes the smartest move is to pair İİK 89 with additional measures: provisional attachment, asset tracing, or parallel proceedings in the country where the third party is economically anchored.
13) Security for costs risk (MÖHUK 48) in foreign-element litigation
When disputes move into court and a party is foreign (or has foreign status under conflict rules), Turkish courts may consider security for costs (commonly associated with MÖHUK Article 48 practice). This can affect strategy because it changes litigation economics.
For creditors: a foreign third party may use cost-security requests as a pressure point.
For foreign third parties: security requests can be a rational tool to manage litigation risk, depending on status and reciprocity conditions.
Because application is fact-sensitive, parties should evaluate:
- the plaintiff’s domicile and status,
- whether exemptions or treaty-based protections apply,
- whether security requests will be granted in the concrete file.
14) High-impact practical strategies for creditors (step-by-step)
Below is a structured strategy that works particularly well when the third party is foreign.
Step 1 — Confirm the correct third party identity
- Contracting entity name, registration number, group structure.
- If the debtor’s counterparty is not the same as the Turkish branch/subsidiary, do not assume liability transfers.
Step 2 — Map the receivable with precision
- Amount, maturity, currency, payment location, supporting documents.
- Identify whether the receivable is disputed, conditional, or subject to set-off.
Step 3 — Build a service plan before issuing the notice
- If in Türkiye: verify service address and authorized persons.
- If abroad: plan for translation and formal channels; anticipate delay.
- Record each step carefully to protect against later service challenges.
Step 4 — Prepare the litigation file proactively
Assume objection will occur and collect:
- contract/invoices/correspondence,
- acceptance/delivery proofs,
- payment traces,
- corporate documents linking the third party to the obligation.
Step 5 — Decide early whether Turkey is the final collection forum
If the third party lacks Turkish assets:
- identify alternative enforcement venues,
- assess feasibility of foreign recognition/enforcement,
- consider parallel proceedings where the third party is economically located.
15) High-impact practical strategies for foreign third parties (risk management checklist)
Foreign third parties can often reduce exposure dramatically if they react correctly within the first days.
Immediate triage (first 48–72 hours)
- Verify whether the notice was validly served and to whom.
- Identify whether you have any relationship with the debtor (contractual, employment, banking, platform account).
- Freeze outgoing payments to the debtor temporarily (internally) until risk is clarified.
Substantive verification
- Check whether any debt exists and whether it is due.
- Check set-off rights, disputes, termination, chargebacks, or compliance blocks.
- Confirm the correct entity: group-company mismatch is common.
Response strategy
- Do not remain silent if service is valid and you have Turkish exposure.
- File a clear objection within time, with factual structure.
- Avoid absolute statements unless verified.
- Consider court action if payment creates cross-border double exposure.
Yanıt yok