A debtor owes EUR 2 million.

The creditor sends a payment demand.

Within days, the debtor transfers the balance of his Turkish bank accounts to Switzerland, Dubai or Germany.

In another case, the debtor does not transfer the money to an account in his own name. Instead, the funds are sent to:

• his spouse;
• his brother;
• a newly established foreign company;
• an offshore holding entity;
• a business partner;
• or a cryptocurrency exchange.

When enforcement proceedings begin in Turkey, the debtor appears to own nothing.

The debtor may then believe:

“The money is abroad. A Turkish enforcement office cannot touch it.”

There is an element of truth in that statement—but the legal conclusion is wrong.

Moving money abroad can make collection substantially more complicated, because compulsory enforcement is territorial. A Turkish enforcement proceeding does not automatically freeze a bank account in London, Frankfurt, Zurich or Dubai.

However, moving money across a border does not extinguish the debt, and it does not necessarily place the assets permanently beyond the creditor’s reach.

A creditor may have several parallel strategies:

• obtain a precautionary attachment before further assets disappear;
• trace the destination of the funds;
• obtain foreign banking evidence through international judicial assistance;
• obtain a Turkish judgment and recognise or enforce it in the country where the assets are located;
• enforce an arbitral award internationally;
• challenge transfers to relatives or connected companies through avoidance proceedings;
• bring a simulation claim where the transfer was fictitious;
• pursue the transferee where the transferred value has been dissipated;
• and, where the factual elements of an offence genuinely exist, consider separate criminal-law remedies.

The most important practical principle is:

Do not treat “money sent abroad” as one legal problem. First determine who owns the money after the transfer.

1. The First Question: Is the Foreign Account Still in the Debtor’s Name?

There is a fundamental difference between:

Scenario A

Debtor transfers EUR 1 million from his Turkish bank account to his own bank account in Switzerland.

and:

Scenario B

Debtor transfers EUR 1 million to his brother’s bank account in Switzerland.

In Scenario A, ownership of the money has not necessarily changed.

The principal problem is cross-border enforcement.

In Scenario B, the creditor faces an additional issue:

Can the transfer to the third party itself be challenged?

That may require:

• an action for avoidance of disposition under Articles 277 et seq. of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (“EBL” / İİK);
• a simulation action under Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations;
• or remedies under the law of the country where the recipient or assets are located.

The litigation strategy therefore depends heavily on the destination of the funds.

2. Moving Money to Your Own Foreign Account Does Not Change Who Owes the Debt

Suppose a debtor has:

EUR 800,000 at a Turkish bank.

The creditor threatens litigation.

The debtor transfers EUR 800,000 to an account in Germany held in his own name.

The creditor’s substantive claim remains unchanged.

If the creditor obtains an enforceable judgment against the debtor, the German account may potentially become a target of enforcement.

The difficulty is procedural.

A Turkish enforcement office does not normally operate as a worldwide enforcement authority.

The creditor must ordinarily use the enforcement mechanisms available in the country where the asset or account is located.

This leads to the next question:

What document does the creditor have?

3. A Creditor With No Judgment Is in a Very Different Position From a Creditor With an Enforceable Judgment

There are usually three stages.

Stage 1 — The Claim Exists but No Judgment Exists

The creditor may need to:

• commence Turkish court proceedings;
• commence arbitration if an arbitration clause exists;
• or, where procedurally available and strategically preferable, pursue proceedings in the country where the debtor’s assets are located.

Stage 2 — A Turkish Court Judgment Exists

The creditor must determine whether that judgment can be recognised and enforced in the foreign country.

Stage 3 — An Arbitral Award Exists

If the award falls within the 1958 New York Convention framework, international enforcement may be substantially more standardised.

The correct recovery strategy may therefore need to be selected before substantive proceedings begin.

4. Can a Turkish Enforcement Office Directly Freeze a Foreign Bank Account?

As a practical rule, one should not assume that it can.

Compulsory enforcement is based on territorial state authority.

A Turkish enforcement office may seize assets, receivables and rights within the scope of Turkish enforcement jurisdiction, but it does not automatically possess authority to order a foreign bank operating abroad to freeze an account held in that foreign jurisdiction.

This produces an important distinction:

Turkish judgment ≠ worldwide seizure order.

If the debtor has GBP 2 million at a bank in London, the creditor will normally need to use the procedures available under English law.

If the debtor has money in Germany, German recognition and enforcement rules become relevant.

If the account is in the UAE, the relevant UAE enforcement framework must be investigated.

Therefore, the first operational question after identifying a foreign asset should be:

“In which country is the asset legally located, and what is required there to freeze and enforce against it?”

5. Before the Money Leaves Turkey: Precautionary Attachment Can Be Critical

The best international recovery case is often the one that never becomes international.

Article 257 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law permits a creditor of a due and unsecured monetary debt to request precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) over the debtor’s assets, receivables and other rights.

Even for a debt not yet due, precautionary attachment may be available in specified circumstances, including where the debtor is hiding or dissipating assets or undertaking fraudulent transactions to escape his obligations.

Suppose the creditor learns that:

• the debtor has begun closing bank accounts;
• property has been transferred;
• vehicles are being sold;
• money is being transferred offshore.

Waiting until the ordinary lawsuit is completed may be disastrous.

A precautionary attachment application may seek to preserve:

• Turkish bank accounts;
• real estate;
• company shares;
• receivables;
• vehicles;
• other attachable rights.

The strategic objective is simple:

Freeze what is still in Turkey before following what has already left.

6. Asset Flight May Also Matter Even If the Debt Is Not Yet Due

Article 257 is particularly important because it expressly contemplates situations where the debtor attempts to hide or dissipate assets in order to escape obligations.

Accordingly, if evidence shows that the debtor is systematically exporting or concealing assets before maturity, the creditor should immediately analyse whether the statutory exceptional conditions for precautionary attachment have arisen.

Useful evidence may include:

• SWIFT transfers;
• sale of major assets;
• closure of accounts;
• transfer to family members;
• messages indicating an intention to avoid payment;
• sudden liquidation of investments;
• movement of company funds to related entities.

The application should be evidence-driven.

A vague allegation that “the debtor may send money abroad” is significantly weaker than documented evidence showing that transfers have already begun.

7. The Most Important Evidence May Be the SWIFT Trail

When money moves through the banking system, it often creates a trail.

A transfer record may reveal:

• originating bank;
• beneficiary bank;
• account holder;
• beneficiary country;
• IBAN;
• SWIFT/BIC;
• amount;
• transfer date;
• payment explanation;
• intermediary banks.

This information can transform an international recovery case.

Compare:

“We believe the debtor has money abroad.”

with:

“On 14 May 2026 the debtor transferred EUR 750,000 from Bank A in Istanbul to IBAN DE… held at Bank B in Frankfurt.”

The second allegation enables targeted foreign legal action.

The creditor should therefore obtain all available Turkish-side transfer records as early as possible.

8. Turkish Proceedings Can Be Used to Obtain Foreign Banking Evidence

International judicial assistance may be used to obtain evidence located abroad.

The Turkish Ministry of Justice expressly identifies the following as matters that may be obtained through international civil judicial assistance:

• information and evidence;
• bank records;
• accounting documents;
• company files;
• commercial records.

Requests are executed under applicable bilateral agreements, multilateral conventions or, where no treaty applies, international practice and reciprocity. The Ministry also confirms that Turkey is a party to the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention.

This can be extremely useful where the creditor knows:

• bank name;
• country;
• account identifier;
• transaction date.

9. International Judicial Assistance Is Evidence Collection—not Automatic Enforcement

This distinction is essential.

A Turkish court may request that foreign authorities obtain bank statements.

That does not necessarily mean the Turkish court can directly freeze the account.

International judicial assistance may help answer:

Where did the money go?

Actual enforcement asks another question:

How do we legally seize it?

Those are separate procedural stages.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice emphasises that international assistance requests are generally carried out according to the law of the requested state.

Accordingly:

• banking secrecy;
• data protection;
• document disclosure;
• proportionality;
• account-freezing rules

can vary considerably between countries.

10. The More Specific the Foreign Evidence Request, the Better

A request such as:

“Investigate whether the defendant has any money anywhere in Switzerland.”

may face practical difficulties.

A stronger request is:

“Obtain account statements for account number X at Bank Y for the period 1 January 2025–30 June 2026, including incoming and outgoing transfers exceeding EUR 50,000.”

The Turkish Ministry of Justice’s materials on international civil assistance require the request to identify the subject of the proceeding and the particular acts or evidence requested.

This is why preliminary asset tracing is so important.

International judicial assistance works best when it is used as a precision instrument, not as a worldwide fishing expedition.

11. What Happens After a Turkish Judgment Is Obtained?

Suppose the creditor obtains a Turkish judgment ordering the debtor to pay EUR 2 million.

The debtor’s only meaningful asset is a Swiss bank account.

The creditor will ordinarily need to ask:

Will Switzerland recognise and enforce this Turkish judgment?

The answer is governed primarily by:

• the law of the country where enforcement is sought;
• any applicable bilateral treaty;
• any applicable multilateral convention;
• procedural requirements of that jurisdiction.

Turkey’s domestic rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments primarily regulate the reverse situation—foreign judgments being enforced in Turkey.

They do not automatically force another country to enforce a Turkish judgment.

Therefore, international recovery planning should begin with the destination jurisdiction’s rules.

12. There Is No Universal “International Enforcement Office”

A creditor should not imagine the following process:

1. obtain Turkish judgment;
2. send judgment to Turkish enforcement office;
3. Turkish enforcement office sends electronic seizure to every bank in Europe.

International enforcement does not generally work that way.

A typical case may instead require:

1. final Turkish judgment;
2. apostille/legalisation where applicable;
3. certified translation;
4. recognition or registration proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction;
5. local interim measures;
6. local enforcement against the account or asset.

The details vary substantially by country.

That is why international asset recovery frequently requires coordination between Turkish counsel and counsel in the destination jurisdiction.

13. Arbitration Can Offer a Major International Enforcement Advantage

Where the underlying contract contains an arbitration clause, international enforcement may be easier in certain respects.

The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards requires contracting states to recognise covered arbitral awards as binding and enforce them according to local procedure, subject to the limited refusal grounds contained in the Convention.

This is significant because the Convention has broad international participation.

If the debtor’s assets may move internationally, the enforceability of the final dispute-resolution instrument should therefore be considered when drafting major commercial contracts.

For a EUR 20 million cross-border loan, an arbitration clause may have very different future enforcement implications than an ordinary domestic jurisdiction clause.

14. An Arbitral Award Is Still Not a Worldwide Freeze Order

Even under the New York Convention, a creditor must generally apply for recognition and enforcement in the country where the assets are located.

The Convention standardises the recognition framework; it does not create a global sheriff.

Article III requires contracting states to recognise and enforce qualifying awards according to the procedural law of the territory where enforcement is sought. Article IV requires production of the award, arbitration agreement and necessary translations, while Article V contains limited grounds for refusal.

Therefore, locating the asset remains critical.

15. What If the Debtor Transfers Money to His Wife, Brother or Friend Abroad?

The legal problem now changes.

The debtor may argue:

“That money is no longer mine.”

If the transfer was real, the creditor may need to attack the transfer itself.

Under Article 280 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, transactions made by a debtor whose assets are insufficient to cover his debts may be avoided where the debtor acted with the intention of prejudicing creditors and the counterparty knew—or circumstances clearly indicated that the counterparty should have known—of the debtor’s financial position and prejudicial intention.

Article 280 also requires enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor within five years of the transaction.

This provision can be highly relevant to money sent to connected persons.

16. Example: EUR 1 Million Sent to the Debtor’s Brother in Dubai

Assume:

1 February — creditor demands repayment of EUR 1.5 million.

5 February — debtor transfers EUR 1 million to his brother in Dubai.

10 February — debtor sells his Turkish vehicle.

15 February — remaining Turkish accounts are emptied.

1 March — enforcement begins.

The brother claims:

“It was repayment of an old family loan.”

The creditor should investigate:

• where is the loan agreement?
• when was the alleged loan originally paid?
• how did the brother fund it?
• do banking records show an earlier transfer?
• was the alleged debt reflected in accounting records?
• why was EUR 1 million suddenly repaid immediately after the creditor’s demand?

If the “loan repayment” cannot be economically substantiated, the transaction may be vulnerable.

17. A Transfer Abroad Is Not Immune From Turkish Avoidance Rules Merely Because It Crossed a Border

The fact that money was sent abroad does not automatically erase the underlying question of whether the debtor engaged in a creditor-prejudicing disposition.

However, there is an important practical limitation:

A Turkish avoidance judgment does not automatically give a Turkish enforcement officer power to seize a foreign bank account.

The creditor may still need recognition, enforcement or separate local proceedings in the country where the asset or transferee is located.

Therefore, two issues must be distinguished:

Turkish substantive case

Was the transfer voidable against the creditor?

Foreign enforcement

How can the resulting judgment actually be executed against assets located abroad?

Both must be planned together.

18. What Does a Successful Avoidance Action Normally Achieve?

Article 283 provides that when an avoidance action succeeds, the creditor gains the right to pursue compulsory enforcement against the transferred asset.

If the third party has already disposed of the relevant property, that party may, subject to the statutory conditions, be ordered to compensate the value replacing the asset up to the amount of the creditor’s claim.

This becomes particularly important where money has passed through several stages.

For example:

Debtor → Brother → Foreign Company → Investment Asset

The creditor should not simply stop when the first recipient says:

“I no longer have the money.”

The subsequent destination may need to be investigated.

19. Interim Protection Should Be Considered in the Avoidance Action

Article 281 expressly permits the court, upon the creditor’s request, to order precautionary attachment over assets forming the subject matter of an avoidance action.

This is critical where part of the transferred wealth remains in Turkey.

For example:

EUR 2 million is transferred abroad.

But the recipient also owns Turkish real estate.

Depending on the claim and procedural conditions, that domestic asset may become strategically important in securing recovery.

An international claim should therefore always investigate whether the foreign transferee has assets inside Turkey.

20. Never Assume That a Foreign Recipient Has No Turkish Assets

A foreign company may still possess:

• Turkish bank accounts;
• receivables from Turkish customers;
• shares in Turkish companies;
• Turkish real estate;
• vehicles;
• contractual claims against Turkish counterparties.

Similarly, a relative living abroad may own property in Istanbul, Antalya or Bodrum.

If the creditor obtains a legally enforceable claim against that person, Turkish assets may provide a dramatically simpler recovery route than pursuing money abroad.

Asset tracing should therefore run in both directions:

Where did the money go abroad?

and

What does the recipient still own in Turkey?

21. What If the Foreign Transfer Is Completely Fake?

Sometimes the debtor’s defence is:

“I paid my brother.”

But both parties privately understand that the money still belongs economically to the debtor.

The brother merely holds it temporarily until the creditor problem disappears.

This can raise simulation (muvazaa) issues under Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence distinguishes genuine creditor-prejudicing transactions from simulated transactions.

In a genuine avoidance case:

the transfer exists, but the creditor seeks to render it ineffective against enforcement.

In a simulation case:

the apparent transaction does not reflect the parties’ true intention.

The legal remedies and procedural conditions are therefore not identical.

22. Do Not Call Every International Transfer “Simulation”

The distinction must follow the evidence.

Example A:

Debtor genuinely gives EUR 500,000 to his daughter so that creditors cannot reach it.

This may involve an avoidance claim.

Example B:

Debtor sends EUR 500,000 to his friend under an agreement that the friend will hold the funds and return them after enforcement ends.

This may raise stronger simulation allegations.

A petition should not merely use terms such as:

• fraudulent transfer;
• simulation;
• asset concealment

interchangeably.

The factual structure determines the cause of action.

23. The Five-Year Period for Avoidance Claims Is Critical

Article 284 provides that the right to bring the statutory avoidance action expires five years after the challenged transaction.

Recent Court of Cassation application confirms the importance of this forfeiture period.

Accordingly:

Transfer: 1 June 2022

The creditor should not discover the transaction in 2026 and assume there is unlimited time to investigate.

International evidence requests and asset tracing can take time.

The deadline must be calculated at the beginning—not at the end—of the investigation.

24. The Debt Must Generally Predate the Challenged Transfer

In statutory avoidance litigation, one of the central preliminary issues is normally whether the creditor’s underlying claim arose before the challenged transaction.

This question is particularly important in long-term commercial relationships.

The date may not necessarily be:

• the date enforcement started;
• the date the cheque bounced;
• or the date judgment was entered.

The court may have to identify the underlying legal relationship from which the debt arose.

Therefore, preserve:

• framework agreements;
• invoices;
• loan agreements;
• delivery records;
• guarantees;
• account statements;
• commercial books.

Without proof that the debt predates the transfer, the avoidance strategy may fail.

25. A Foreign Company Can Be Used as an Asset-Holding Vehicle

A more sophisticated debtor may establish:

Debtor → Foreign Holding Company → Foreign Bank Account

The debtor then argues:

“The money belongs to the company.”

The creditor must respect corporate separateness.

A company is a separate legal person.

It is not automatically permissible to seize company assets for the personal debts of its shareholder.

The investigation should therefore identify:

• who owns the foreign company;
• when it was incorporated;
• what consideration the company provided;
• whether the debtor contributed funds as capital;
• whether the company owes the debtor money;
• whether the debtor owns shares that themselves have value;
• whether the entity is merely part of a simulated structure;
• what law governs veil-piercing or similar claims in the jurisdiction concerned.

The target asset may ultimately be the debtor’s shares in the foreign company, rather than the company’s bank balance itself.

26. Example: Money Moved Into a Newly Created Foreign Company

Creditor claim: EUR 3 million.

One month after receiving a formal notice, the debtor incorporates Company X abroad.

The debtor owns 100%.

EUR 2.5 million is transferred into Company X as capital.

The company does no genuine business.

The funds are invested in securities.

The debtor argues that:

“The securities belong to Company X, not to me.”

The creditor should investigate at least three potential targets:

1. The transfer into Company X

Was it challengeable as a creditor-prejudicing disposition?

2. The debtor’s shares in Company X

What are they worth?

3. Local foreign-law remedies

Does the destination country provide remedies against sham or abusive structures?

Simply proving that the money left the debtor’s personal bank account is not enough.

27. Crypto Does Not Eliminate the Legal Claim Either

A debtor may convert bank funds into cryptocurrency and transfer them to:

• a centralised exchange;
• self-custody wallet;
• another person’s wallet.

The enforcement problem becomes technically different, but the legal questions remain familiar:

Who owns the asset?

Can the wallet or exchange account be connected to the debtor?

Where is the intermediary legally located?

What disclosure or freezing mechanism exists in that jurisdiction?

Where a regulated exchange holds the asset, local disclosure and freezing mechanisms may be available.

Where assets have been moved to self-custody, tracing and enforcement become more complex.

A creditor should avoid assuming either:

“Crypto is impossible to trace,”

or:

“A Turkish court order automatically freezes every wallet.”

Neither proposition is generally correct.

28. Criminal Proceedings Are Not a Substitute for Debt Collection

Creditors sometimes respond to overseas transfers by immediately filing a criminal complaint.

That may be appropriate where genuine evidence supports criminal conduct.

But simply failing to pay a civil debt or transferring money abroad does not automatically constitute fraud.

Criminal liability requires the elements of a specific offence to be proven.

The civil recovery strategy should therefore continue independently:

• enforcement;
• precautionary measures;
• avoidance;
• foreign recognition;
• asset tracing.

A criminal complaint should not become the only recovery plan.

29. If Criminal Conduct Exists, International Cooperation Can Become Broader

There is nevertheless an important distinction.

The Ministry of Justice states that international criminal judicial cooperation may include:

• obtaining bank and accounting records;
• identifying or tracing proceeds and assets;
• search and seizure;
• execution of foreign seizure-type measures, subject to the applicable legal framework.

Those mechanisms belong to criminal proceedings and cannot simply be invoked because a private creditor wants faster collection.

But where actual criminal conduct exists, the evidentiary and asset-tracing environment may therefore differ substantially from an ordinary commercial debt action.

30. Foreign Bank Secrecy Does Not Mean “No Evidence Is Possible”

Another common misconception is:

“The account is in Switzerland, so nobody can ever learn anything.”

Bank confidentiality rules vary between countries, and they can significantly affect disclosure.

But confidentiality is not necessarily absolute against lawful judicial processes.

The Turkish Ministry of Justice expressly identifies foreign bank records as evidence that may be sought through international judicial assistance.

The practical question is not whether the country is perceived as “secretive.”

It is:

What judicial procedure does that country’s law require for disclosure?

31. The Creditor Should Build a Transaction Timeline

International asset recovery becomes much easier when presented chronologically.

For example:

10 January
Loan payment due.

15 January
Formal demand served.

17 January
TRY equivalent of EUR 400,000 transferred to Germany.

20 January
EUR 300,000 transferred to brother in Dubai.

23 January
Company shares transferred to spouse.

25 January
Turkish account balance falls to TRY 20,000.

1 February
Enforcement begins.

This chronology may become powerful evidence of intentional dissipation.

It also identifies the precise foreign requests that should be made.

32. Follow the Money, Not Only the First Transfer

Suppose:

Turkey → Germany → UAE → Luxembourg

The creditor should reconstruct the full chain where possible.

A German account may show that the money was immediately transferred again.

That does not make the German banking evidence useless.

On the contrary, it identifies the next destination.

International asset recovery is frequently iterative:

Transfer 1 reveals Transfer 2.

Transfer 2 reveals the beneficial owner.

Beneficial owner reveals an investment asset.

The objective is to establish where value ultimately settled.

33. Outgoing and Incoming Payments Should Both Be Examined

Circular transactions can expose sham arrangements.

Example:

Debtor → Brother: EUR 1 million

Three days later:

Brother’s Company → Debtor’s Foreign Company: EUR 950,000

The first transfer may be described as:

“Repayment of family debt.”

The second may suggest that the debtor retained indirect economic control.

Transaction analysis should therefore not stop at the outgoing payment.

34. Related-Party Transactions Require Particular Scrutiny

Article 280 contains statutory rules that can make relationships with close relatives particularly important in determining knowledge of the debtor’s financial situation.

Other relationships can also matter factually:

• longtime business partner;
• employee;
• nominee shareholder;
• common company;
• shared registered address;
• repeated commercial dealings.

The stronger the relationship between the debtor and recipient, the more important it becomes to test whether the transaction was genuinely arm’s length.

35. “The Money Was Payment of a Genuine Debt” Can Be a Strong Defence

Not every transfer abroad is fraudulent.

Suppose the debtor owes:

Creditor A: EUR 1 million

Foreign Bank B: EUR 500,000 under a genuine loan.

The debtor pays Bank B.

The mere fact that money left Turkey does not establish fraudulent asset flight.

The creditor should investigate:

• existence of the foreign obligation;
• maturity;
• contractual documents;
• payment amount;
• whether the transaction was ordinary;
• relationship with recipient.

A recovery claim must distinguish genuine commercial payments from transactions structured to prejudice creditors.

36. Example: Genuine Overseas Investment Before the Dispute

Debtor transfers USD 2 million to a US investment account two years before any dispute exists.

At that time:

• debtor is solvent;
• creditor’s claim has not arisen;
• no default exists;
• transfer is a documented investment.

Years later, the debtor defaults on an unrelated obligation.

The creditor cannot simply characterise the historical investment as “asset flight.”

However, once the creditor has a judgment, the investment assets may still be executable as assets belonging to the debtor, subject to US enforcement law.

This illustrates the distinction between:

challenging the original transfer

and

enforcing against an asset that still belongs to the debtor.

37. Recognition Strategy Should Be Investigated Before Filing the Main Case

In a high-value international claim, counsel should ask before proceedings begin:

Where are the debtor’s assets?

If the answer is:

• England;
• Germany;
• Switzerland;
• UAE;

then ask:

How does that jurisdiction treat a Turkish judgment?

This may affect:

• forum selection;
• arbitration strategy;
• service method;
• form of the final judgment;
• evidentiary preparation.

Winning the main case is only half the litigation strategy.

A judgment that cannot be efficiently executed where the money sits may have limited commercial value.

38. The Contract Itself Can Improve Future Recovery

Creditors negotiating high-value contracts can reduce future enforcement risk through careful drafting.

Potential tools include:

• arbitration clauses;
• choice-of-court clauses;
• guarantees;
• pledges;
• share pledges;
• mortgages;
• escrow accounts;
• bank guarantees;
• negative pledge clauses;
• information covenants;
• restrictions on extraordinary asset disposals.

The best asset-recovery dispute is often prevented at contracting stage.

An unsecured creditor attempting to find money across five jurisdictions faces a fundamentally harder problem than a secured creditor with a valid pledge.

39. Practical Example: Debtor Sends Everything to Dubai

A Turkish borrower owes EUR 4 million.

Documents show:

• EUR 1.5 million transferred from Turkey to the debtor’s personal UAE account;
• EUR 1 million transferred to his brother;
• EUR 500,000 transferred to a newly established UAE company;
• Turkish real estate transferred to his spouse.

A comprehensive strategy should not treat these transactions identically.

Debtor’s Personal UAE Account

Primary issue:

foreign recognition and enforcement against the debtor’s own asset.

Brother’s EUR 1 Million

Primary issue:

avoidance/simulation + possible foreign enforcement against the transferee.

UAE Company

Primary issues:

ownership structure + transfer challenge + value of debtor’s company shares + UAE remedies.

Turkish Property Transferred to Spouse

Primary issue:

Turkish avoidance/simulation proceeding + domestic precautionary protection.

A single petition stating:

“The debtor moved everything abroad”

is therefore insufficient.

Each asset needs its own legal route.

40. A Practical International Asset-Recovery Checklist

When a creditor suspects that a debtor is transferring money abroad, the legal team should immediately determine:

Debt

• What is the legal source of the debt?
• When did it arise?
• Is it due?
• Is there a judgment or arbitral award?

Turkish Assets

• Which assets remain in Turkey?
• Can precautionary attachment be obtained?
• Are there Turkish receivables or company shares?

Foreign Transfers

• Which bank sent the money?
• When?
• How much?
• To which country?
• To whose account?
• What IBAN/SWIFT information exists?

Recipient

• Debtor himself?
• Relative?
• Company?
• Nominee?
• Independent creditor?

Legal Character

• Genuine asset belonging to debtor?
• Fraudulent transfer?
• Gratuitous transfer?
• Simulated transaction?
• Genuine payment?

Foreign Enforcement

• Can the Turkish judgment be recognised?
• Is a local freezing application available?
• Is an arbitral award available under the New York Convention?
• Is local counsel required immediately?

Deadlines

• When did each transfer occur?
• Is the five-year İİK Article 284 period running?
• Are foreign limitation periods applicable?

This analysis should begin before lengthy correspondence with the debtor.

41. The Most Important Mistake: Waiting Until the Lawsuit Ends to Look for Assets

A creditor may spend three years proving that EUR 5 million is owed.

After winning, counsel asks:

“Now, where are the assets?”

That is often too late.

Asset recovery should begin at the same time as merits litigation.

The creditor should continuously evaluate:

• asset ownership;
• transfers;
• enforcement jurisdictions;
• protective measures.

The litigation plan should therefore be:

claim strategy + asset strategy.

Not:

claim first, assets later.

42. What Turkish Enforcement Searches Can Still Reveal

After enforcement becomes available, Turkish systems can provide important information regarding domestic assets and rights.

İİK Article 78 allows asset, right and receivable inquiries through UYAP-integrated systems and enables electronic seizure of identified assets within the domestic system.

This will not by itself provide a worldwide bank-account search.

But domestic results can reveal:

• previous banks used;
• remaining rights and receivables;
• corporate relationships;
• assets available for immediate enforcement.

The Turkish file remains important even when major value has moved abroad.

43. If the Third Party Has Disposed of the Asset, Value Recovery May Still Matter

A debtor may attempt to create the following chain:

Debtor → Relative → Third Party → Cash spent.

Article 283 expressly provides a monetary consequence where the third party has disposed of the transferred property: the claim may extend to the value replacing that asset, within the statutory limits and not exceeding the creditor’s claim.

This is important because asset recovery should not always be conceptualised as:

“Get the same bank balance back.”

Sometimes the legally realistic objective is:

“Obtain a money judgment against the recipient for the value dissipated.”

44. International Cases Require Parallel Rather Than Sequential Action

The most effective approach will often involve several procedures simultaneously.

For example:

Turkey

• commercial lawsuit;
• enforcement proceeding;
• precautionary attachment;
• avoidance action;
• banking discovery.

Germany

• recognition of Turkish judgment;
• local account attachment.

UAE

• asset search;
• local freezing application;
• enforcement against debtor or transferee.

These proceedings must be coordinated.

Waiting for one jurisdiction to finish before commencing work in the next may give the debtor time to move the asset again.

45. The Creditor Should Prioritise Assets by Recoverability

Not every discovered asset should be pursued.

Suppose investigators identify:

• EUR 100,000 in Turkey;
• EUR 300,000 in Germany;
• EUR 400,000 in a complex offshore trust structure;
• EUR 50,000 of crypto;
• TRY 15 million Turkish real estate transferred to spouse.

The commercial question is:

Which asset offers the fastest and most economical route to recovery?

International litigation costs can be substantial.

The goal is not to win every theoretical legal argument.

It is to maximise actual collection.

46. What a Debtor Should Not Assume

A debtor should not assume that:

“The Turkish bank account is empty, therefore collection is impossible.”

A modern asset-recovery investigation can connect:

• Turkish bank statements;
• SWIFT records;
• company records;
• international evidence requests;
• foreign enforcement;
• transfer-avoidance litigation.

Asset movement changes the procedure.

It does not automatically eliminate creditor rights.

Conclusion

A debtor who transfers money abroad can make collection more difficult, but the border itself does not extinguish the creditor’s claim.

The correct legal strategy depends first on who owns the asset after the transfer.

If the debtor simply transferred money to his own foreign account, the principal task is generally to obtain an enforceable title, locate the account and use the recognition and enforcement procedures of the country where the funds are held.

If the money was transferred to a relative, nominee or connected company, Turkish avoidance rules under İİK Articles 277 et seq., Article 280’s creditor-prejudice framework and, where the transaction was fictitious, TBK Article 19 simulation principles may become relevant. Article 281 also allows precautionary attachment in avoidance litigation, while Article 283 may provide recovery against the transferred asset or its replacement value.

The statutory avoidance route must also be pursued promptly because Article 284 establishes a five-year forfeiture period from the challenged transaction.

Foreign evidence can be sought through international civil judicial assistance. The Turkish Ministry of Justice expressly confirms that such assistance may include obtaining bank, accounting and corporate records.

Where the creditor holds an arbitral award, the New York Convention may provide a substantially more standardised international enforcement route, although enforcement must still be pursued through the competent authorities of the country where the debtor’s assets are located.

The most effective creditor strategy is therefore rarely a single lawsuit.

It is a coordinated recovery plan:

freeze what remains in Turkey, trace what left Turkey, challenge transfers to third parties, obtain an enforceable title and pursue the assets in the jurisdiction where they actually exist.

The debtor may move the money.

The creditor must follow the value.