International Asset Division in Divorce: Foreign Real Estate, Bank Accounts, Corporate Interests and Hidden Wealth

International marriages increasingly produce international divorces—and international divorces rarely involve assets located in only one country.

A couple may live in Türkiye, own an apartment in London, maintain bank accounts in Switzerland or Germany, hold shares in a company incorporated in the Netherlands, and have investment portfolios or digital assets administered through institutions in yet another jurisdiction. When the marriage ends, the legal dispute is therefore no longer limited to the question of divorce itself. A second and often more economically significant battle begins:

Which assets belong to the matrimonial estate, which country’s law applies to them, how can foreign assets be discovered, and how can one spouse prevent the other from transferring or concealing those assets before judgment?

Cross-border matrimonial property disputes sit at the intersection of family law, private international law, property law, corporate law, banking law and enforcement law. For this reason, determining the existence of an asset is only the beginning. The real challenge is constructing a legal strategy capable of reaching that asset across borders.

1. Why International Divorce Does Not Mean International Asset Division Automatically

One of the most common misconceptions in international family law is that the court granting the divorce automatically acquires unrestricted power over every asset owned by the spouses anywhere in the world.

That is not necessarily the case.

Three separate legal questions must normally be distinguished:

1. Which court has jurisdiction over the divorce?
2. Which court has jurisdiction over the matrimonial property dispute?
3. Which country’s substantive law governs the matrimonial property regime and the particular asset concerned?

These questions may produce different answers.

A Turkish court, for example, may have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage while a foreign legal system remains relevant to a property located abroad. Conversely, a foreign divorce judgment may terminate the marriage but further proceedings may still be necessary in Türkiye concerning the liquidation of matrimonial property situated in Türkiye.

This distinction is especially important for international couples because jurisdiction and applicable law are not the same thing.

A court may have jurisdiction over the dispute while being required, under its conflict-of-laws rules, to apply foreign law.

2. The First Question: Which Law Governs the Matrimonial Property Regime?

Before determining how property will be divided, the applicable matrimonial property law must be identified.

Different legal systems use substantially different models.

Some jurisdictions operate community-property systems. Others provide for participation in acquired property, separation of property, deferred community regimes or judicial equitable distribution. In common-law jurisdictions, courts may have broader discretion to redistribute assets according to fairness considerations, whereas continental European systems generally place greater emphasis on predetermined statutory matrimonial property regimes.

This difference can dramatically alter the financial outcome of the same divorce.

An apartment registered solely in the husband’s name, for example, does not necessarily belong exclusively to the husband for matrimonial property purposes. Similarly, shares formally registered in one spouse’s name may still have been acquired with matrimonial funds and therefore become relevant during liquidation.

The title appearing on the asset is therefore important—but frequently not decisive.

3. Matrimonial Property in International Divorces Under Turkish Private International Law

Türkiye has specific conflict-of-laws rules for matrimonial property.

Article 15 of Turkish Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law provides a particular framework for matrimonial property regimes involving a foreign element.

Spouses may expressly choose, within the limits established by the legislation, the law of their habitual residence or national law at the time of marriage to govern their matrimonial property regime.

Where the spouses have made no valid choice of law, the analysis generally proceeds through connecting factors including:

• the spouses’ common national law at the time of marriage;
• failing that, their common habitual residence at the time of marriage; and
• failing that, Turkish law.

Importantly, Article 15 also contains a specific rule concerning immovable property: in the liquidation of matrimonial property, immovable property is subject to the law of the country in which it is situated.

This can be extremely significant.

Consider a Turkish-German couple with assets in Istanbul, Berlin and London. Even if one system of law generally governs their matrimonial property relationship, foreign real estate may introduce additional mandatory rules arising from the law of the country where the property is situated.

Consequently, international asset division should rarely be approached as though a single divorce judgment can simply be applied identically to every asset worldwide.

4. Foreign Real Estate: The Most Location-Sensitive Asset

Real estate is usually the clearest example of why international matrimonial property disputes become complicated.

Suppose a couple divorcing in Türkiye owns:

• an apartment in Istanbul;
• a holiday property in Spain;
• a residential property in London; and
• land in Montenegro.

Determining the matrimonial value of these properties is one issue.

Changing title, registering rights, restricting disposal, selling the property or enforcing a judgment against it is another.

Real estate registers are territorial institutions. A Turkish judgment does not physically alter a foreign land register merely because the judgment states that a spouse has a financial entitlement arising from the marriage.

Depending on the country concerned, it may be necessary to:

• obtain recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment;
• commence supplementary proceedings in the country where the property is located;
• establish the matrimonial claim before the local court;
• register a court order or restriction against the property;
• obtain a local valuation; or
• enforce a monetary judgment against the property.

For this reason, foreign real estate should be investigated at an early stage of the divorce rather than after the matrimonial property case has concluded.

5. European Union Rules and Matrimonial Property

Within participating EU Member States, Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 provides an important framework governing jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning matrimonial property regimes.

The Regulation seeks, among other objectives, to coordinate matrimonial property proceedings with related divorce and succession proceedings.

For example, where the relevant conditions are satisfied, the courts dealing with divorce proceedings may also obtain jurisdiction over matrimonial property matters. Where those connecting mechanisms do not apply, jurisdiction may be determined through factors such as the spouses’ habitual residence, their last common habitual residence, the defendant’s habitual residence or their common nationality. The Regulation also contains subsidiary jurisdiction mechanisms concerning immovable property in certain circumstances.

This illustrates a broader principle of international divorce litigation:

The location of the spouses is important, but the location and legal nature of the assets can be equally important.

Türkiye is not bound by the Regulation as an EU participating Member State. Nevertheless, Regulation 2016/1103 is highly relevant whenever matrimonial property proceedings or assets have connections with participating EU jurisdictions.

6. Foreign Bank Accounts: Ownership Is Easier to Hide Than Real Estate

Real estate normally leaves a public registration trail.

Money does not.

Bank accounts are therefore among the most disputed assets in high-value international divorces.

A spouse anticipating divorce may attempt to:

• transfer money to foreign accounts;
• close domestic investment accounts;
• transfer funds to relatives or business partners;
• convert deposits into securities;
• move funds between corporate and personal accounts;
• acquire crypto-assets;
• establish foreign companies;
• transfer money through shareholder loan accounts;
• make apparently legitimate payments to affiliated companies; or
• create artificial debts.

The legal question therefore becomes not merely “what assets exist today?” but also:

“What assets existed immediately before the divorce dispute began, and where did they go?”

This is why financial tracing is central to sophisticated matrimonial property litigation.

7. Can a Lawyer Simply Ask a Foreign Bank for the Other Spouse’s Records?

Usually not.

Banking confidentiality, financial privacy rules and procedural restrictions mean that a spouse or foreign lawyer cannot ordinarily send an informal request to an overseas bank and demand the other spouse’s account statements.

Disclosure generally requires an appropriate legal basis.

Depending on the jurisdictions involved, evidence may potentially be obtained through:

• domestic court disclosure orders;
• judicial assistance mechanisms;
• letters rogatory or international judicial cooperation;
• disclosure proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction;
• information already contained in tax or corporate records;
• evidence obtained from matrimonial proceedings;
• financial expert reports; or
• lawful documentation previously accessible to the requesting spouse.

The procedure differs significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

A crucial strategic distinction must therefore be made between:

knowing that an asset probably exists and having admissible evidence proving that the asset exists.

Successful cross-border litigation often depends on converting the first into the second.

8. Company Shares: The Most Difficult Asset May Not Be the Company Itself

Corporate interests create a different level of complexity.

Assume that one spouse is the sole registered shareholder of a company established during the marriage.

Several questions immediately arise:

• Were the shares acquired before or during the marriage?
• What funds were used to acquire them?
• Have the shares increased in value?
• Does the increase constitute matrimonial value under the applicable law?
• Has the shareholder received dividends?
• Is the shareholder retaining profits inside the company instead of distributing them?
• Is the company paying personal expenses?
• Have assets been transferred to related companies?
• Has ownership been moved to nominees, relatives or trusts?
• What is the true market value of the business?

It is important to distinguish ownership of the company’s assets from ownership of the shares.

A spouse owning 100% of a company does not personally own every asset registered to that company. The company is a separate legal person.

Accordingly, in many cases the object of matrimonial valuation is not each individual company asset but the value of the spouse’s shareholding.

Nevertheless, where the corporate structure has been abused to conceal matrimonial wealth or to reduce the apparent value of a spouse’s estate, deeper investigation may be necessary.

9. How Are Private Company Shares Valued in Divorce?

Publicly traded shares can ordinarily be valued by reference to market prices.

Private companies are much harder.

A valuation may require examination of:

• balance sheets;
• profit and loss statements;
• tax returns;
• cash flow;
• receivables;
• liabilities;
• intellectual property;
• real estate owned by the company;
• shareholder loans;
• related-party transactions;
• retained earnings;
• management remuneration;
• goodwill;
• customer concentration;
• future earnings;
• comparable transactions; and
• transfers occurring shortly before the divorce.

Forensic accountants and corporate valuation experts may therefore become essential in high-value divorce disputes.

A business reporting modest accounting profits may still have substantial economic value.

Conversely, a company with considerable turnover may have very limited equity value because of debt or other liabilities.

Turnover alone is not company value.

10. Asset Dissipation: What If One Spouse Starts Moving Assets Before Divorce?

Asset dissipation is one of the greatest dangers in cross-border divorce proceedings.

It is significantly easier to transfer an asset today than to recover it from another country several years later.

A spouse expecting litigation may attempt to sell property, transfer shares, move deposits, create artificial debts or transfer valuable assets to relatives.

Such transactions should not automatically be treated as legally effective against the other spouse’s matrimonial claims merely because formal ownership has changed.

The available remedies depend on the governing law and circumstances, but potential strategies may include:

• interim injunctions;
• restrictions on disposal;
• precautionary attachment;
• freezing measures;
• challenges to sham transactions;
• claims concerning fraudulent or collusive transfers;
• claims involving contributions to matrimonial property;
• tracing of sale proceeds; and
• proceedings against third parties where legally permitted.

The essential issue is speed.

Once an asset has been transferred through several jurisdictions, converted into another form or placed under the control of third parties, enforcement becomes considerably more difficult and expensive.

11. Asset Tracing Should Begin Before the Assets Disappear

International matrimonial property litigation should therefore begin with an asset map.

An effective asset map may identify:

Real Estate

Properties owned directly, jointly, through companies or through third parties.

Bank and Investment Accounts

Domestic and overseas accounts, brokerage portfolios, investment funds and deposits.

Corporate Interests

Shares, partnership interests, shareholder loans, beneficial ownership structures and affiliated companies.

Movable Assets

Vehicles, yachts, aircraft, jewellery, artwork and valuable collections.

Digital Assets

Cryptocurrencies, exchange accounts, digital wallets and tokenised investments.

Receivables

Loans made to companies or third parties, contractual receivables and undistributed profits.

Trust and Foundation Structures

Where the relevant jurisdiction recognises such structures, beneficial interests may require careful examination.

The objective is not merely to list assets formally registered in a spouse’s name. It is to understand the economic structure of the family’s wealth.

12. Hidden Assets and Beneficial Ownership

One of the most difficult situations arises when an asset is legally registered in another person’s name but allegedly beneficially controlled by one spouse.

Common examples include assets held through:

• siblings;
• parents;
• close friends;
• nominees;
• shell companies;
• trusts;
• holding companies; or
• business partners.

A transfer shortly before divorce does not, by itself, prove fraud.

However, courts may consider the surrounding circumstances, including:

• the timing of the transfer;
• whether genuine consideration was paid;
• the relationship between transferor and transferee;
• whether the original owner continues using the asset;
• who receives the income;
• who pays taxes and expenses;
• who controls the company or account; and
• whether the transaction has a genuine commercial explanation.

The economic reality of a transaction can therefore become as important as its documentary form.

13. Timing Can Determine the Outcome

In matrimonial property litigation, dates matter.

The following dates can fundamentally affect the classification and valuation of an asset:

• date of marriage;
• date on which the matrimonial property regime began;
• date of acquisition;
• date of separation;
• date on which divorce proceedings were commenced;
• date on which the property regime legally terminated;
• date of disposal;
• date of valuation; and
• date on which the divorce judgment became effective.

Foreign divorce judgments create additional complications.

Recent Turkish legal scholarship has also highlighted developments concerning limitation periods for matrimonial property claims following foreign divorce decisions. In particular, analysis of the Turkish Court of Cassation General Assembly’s judgment dated 29 November 2023 notes an important change from the earlier approach that had linked commencement of the limitation period to recognition of the foreign divorce judgment in Türkiye.

For parties with foreign divorce judgments and assets in Türkiye, limitation issues should therefore be examined immediately rather than assuming that recognition proceedings automatically postpone every relevant deadline.

14. A Foreign Divorce Judgment May Need Recognition Before Property Claims Can Proceed

Another frequent mistake is assuming that because the spouses are already divorced abroad, Turkish authorities must automatically treat all consequences of that divorce as legally established.

Recognition and enforcement rules may still become relevant.

The dissolution of marriage, matrimonial property claims, child-related orders, maintenance and monetary judgments are legally distinct matters.

A judgment capable of proving that a marriage has ended does not necessarily provide an executable mechanism for collecting a monetary matrimonial property claim in another country.

Accordingly, international divorce strategy should distinguish between:

recognition of marital status and enforcement of financial rights.

This distinction can be decisive when substantial assets are located in Türkiye.

15. Why Cross-Border Divorce Requires a Multi-Jurisdictional Strategy

A high-value international divorce should rarely be handled as though it were an ordinary domestic property dispute with a few foreign documents attached.

The legal strategy should instead answer five questions from the beginning:

1. Where should proceedings be commenced?

Jurisdiction can influence procedure, disclosure possibilities, interim protection and enforcement.

2. Which law governs the matrimonial property regime?

The answer may determine which assets are included and how claims are calculated.

3. Where are the assets actually located?

The formal address of a spouse is less important than the jurisdictions in which enforceable wealth exists.

4. Can those assets be preserved?

Interim measures may be far more valuable than a favourable judgment obtained after the assets have disappeared.

5. Can the final judgment actually be enforced?

A judgment with no realistic enforcement route may have little practical value.

International family litigation is therefore not simply about obtaining a judgment.

It is about obtaining a judgment that can reach the assets.

16. Practical Example: Istanbul Divorce, London Property, German Account and Dutch Company

Consider the following scenario.

A Turkish citizen and a German citizen marry, later live in Istanbul and eventually commence divorce proceedings in Türkiye.

During the marriage:

• an apartment is purchased in London;
• €600,000 is held in a German investment account;
• the husband acquires shares in a Dutch technology company;
• the wife owns an apartment in Istanbul acquired before marriage;
• money is transferred shortly before the divorce to a company controlled by the husband’s brother.

There is no single legal question.

Counsel must examine separately:

The Istanbul property:
When was it acquired? Is it personal property? Has matrimonial money increased its value?

The London property:
How does the applicable matrimonial property law interact with the law governing the immovable property and the English registration and enforcement system?

The German account:
Can its existence and balance be proved? Can disclosure or preservation measures be obtained?

The Dutch shares:
When were they acquired? What is their present value? Have dividends or retained earnings affected the matrimonial calculation?

The transfer to the brother’s company:
Was it a genuine commercial transaction or an attempt to reduce the matrimonial estate?

This example demonstrates why asset division in an international divorce is fundamentally an exercise in legal coordination.

17. The Biggest Mistake: Waiting Until After the Divorce

Parties frequently focus entirely on obtaining the divorce judgment and only afterwards begin investigating property.

Where substantial international wealth exists, this may be a serious strategic error.

By then:

• property may have been sold;
• money may have crossed several jurisdictions;
• corporate shares may have been transferred;
• bank accounts may have been closed;
• companies may have been reorganised; and
• records may have become more difficult to obtain.

For this reason, the matrimonial property strategy should ideally be developed at the same time as the divorce strategy.

The earlier the asset structure is understood, the greater the chance of preserving evidence and protecting the eventual claim.

18. International Divorce Is Ultimately an Enforcement Problem

The most sophisticated legal argument has limited practical value if the resulting judgment cannot be enforced.

A spouse may establish a multimillion-euro matrimonial claim in one jurisdiction but discover that the debtor spouse and all valuable assets are located elsewhere.

Effective representation therefore requires counsel to think backwards:

Where is the money?

Then:

Which court order can reach it?

And finally:

Will that order be recognised and enforced where the asset is located?

This enforcement-first approach is particularly important where real estate, foreign bank accounts, corporate shares or complex ownership structures are involved.

Conclusion: In Cross-Border Divorce, Follow the Assets

International matrimonial property disputes are among the most technically demanding areas of modern family law because marriage may be personal, but wealth is increasingly global.

Foreign real estate, offshore or overseas bank accounts, company shares, investment portfolios and assets held through third parties cannot be approached through domestic family law alone.

A successful strategy requires coordination between:

private international law, matrimonial property law, foreign property law, banking and corporate law, evidence gathering, interim measures, recognition and enforcement.

For Turkish and international couples with assets located across multiple jurisdictions, the central questions should be investigated before substantial litigation begins:

Which law applies? Which court has jurisdiction? What assets exist? Where are they located? Can they be frozen or preserved? And, ultimately, can the judgment be enforced against them?

In cross-border divorce, the real legal battle is often not simply about ending the marriage.

It is about finding, preserving and reaching the wealth before it crosses another border.

This article provides general legal information regarding international matrimonial property disputes and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. Cross-border divorce and asset division should be assessed individually according to the nationalities and habitual residences of the spouses, the date and place of marriage, any matrimonial property agreement, the location and nature of the assets, and the jurisdictions in which recognition or enforcement may be required.