The Legal and Practical Distinctions Between Attachment Orders and Garnishment Notice

When an enforcement proceeding becomes final, it is time for the creditor to take action. With just a few clicks in the electronic system, the creditor can access the debtor’s bank accounts and secure the receivable by placing attachments (seizures) on those accounts. However, not every type of bank attachment produces the same effect; in practice, different forms of seizure lead to different legal and practical outcomes.

In this article, our attorneys Seydican Yanarateş, Evrem Umut, and Trainee Lawyer Barbaros Yeşil comprehensively examine the types of bank attachments issued by creditors during enforcement proceedings, the distinctions between them, their practical implications, and the scope of banks’ liability in light of judicial decisions. You can access the full article below:

INTRODUCTION

Today, one of the fastest and most effective steps in enforcement proceedings is the attachment of the debtor’s bank accounts. Creditors can, with just a few clicks, access all of the debtor’s accounts held in banks across Türkiye; the debtor’s monetary assets can be instantly identified and seized electronically.

However, since bank attachments can, in theory, be carried out in two different forms -by way of a “seizure order” or a “garnishment notice”- uncertainty often arises as to which method should be used and which one offers greater advantages for the creditor. In practice, the distinction between these two is not well understood by many, which sometimes leads to delays in collection or weakens the overall effectiveness of the enforcement file.

Keywords: Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, Garnishment Notice, Seizure Order, and the Liability of Banks as Third Parties

I. Garnishment Notice

The attachment of a debtor’s rights and receivables held by third parties -provided they are not embodied in negotiable instruments- is comprehensively regulated under Article 89 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, which constitutes the legal basis of the garnishment notice:

“If a receivable or other claim not represented by a bearer instrument or an endorsable bill, or a movable property belonging to the debtor and held by a third person, is attached, the enforcement officer shall notify the person who owes the debtor (whether a natural or legal person) that henceforth any payment must be made only to the enforcement office, and that any payment made to the debtor will not be valid. Likewise, if the attached item is a movable in the possession of a third person, the officer shall notify that the item must be delivered to the enforcement office and not to the debtor, otherwise the third person will be obliged to pay its value to the enforcement office (Garnishment Notice).”

A garnishment notice sent to a bank where the debtor holds an account also falls within this scope. Accordingly, when a bank receives a first-stage garnishment notice (Article 89/1), it must, if there exists any receivable belonging to the debtor, transfer the amount not to the debtor but to the enforcement office. The notified bank also has the right to object to the garnishment notice, and the objection period is seven days from the date of service.

This provision establishes a three-stage liability mechanism for third parties under Article 89(1)-(3) of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK). If the third party fails to respond to the first garnishment notice within the prescribed period, or provides false or misleading information, that third party may be held liable as if they were the debtor for the amount stated in the notice.

Thus, Article 89 of the İİK creates a mechanism through which not only the debtor but also third parties having economic relations with the debtor may become involved in the enforcement process. In doing so, it significantly enhances the creditor’s ability to recover the debt and strengthens the overall effectiveness of enforcement proceedings.

II. Seizure Order

The legal basis of the Seizure Order -commonly referred to in practice as the Lien Notification- is set out in Article 78 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. Pursuant to this provision, once an enforcement proceeding becomes final, the creditor may request the attachment of the debtor’s assets and rights. Where the debtor’s assets are held by a third party, the enforcement office issues a seizure order to that third party. Within this framework, if the creditor seeks to attach future receivables, the proper legal instrument is a request for a seizure order.

In this context, future receivables refer to claims that have not yet arisen but are expected to arise from an existing legal relationship between two parties (in our case, the judgment debtor and the bank). For a receivable to be classified as “future,” there must exist (i) a legal relationship -such as the debtor’s contractual relationship with the bank- and (ii) sufficient specificity regarding the type of receivable (e.g., account number, account type, currency denomination) and its obligor (the bank).

Accordingly, a seizure order sent to a third party also imposes liability on that party in respect of receivables that may arise in the future under the existing legal relationship with the debtor[1].

In other words, a seizure order imposes on the third-party bank the duty to report not only the debtor’s existing receivables held with the bank up to the moment the order is served, but also any receivables that the debtor may hold in the bank after the service of the order.

III. Difference Between Seizure Orders and Garnishment Notices and the Liability of Banks

The liability of a third party—such as a bank—upon service of a seizure order is limited to the application of the attachment on the specified account. In other words, if the debtor’s account contains a balance, the bank must immediately execute the attachment; if no such account or balance exists, the bank is only obliged to notify the enforcement office.

In contrast, a garnishment notice issued under Article 89 of the İİK produces a different legal effect. If the third party fails to respond within the prescribed period or provides false or misleading information, it may be held liable as if it were the debtor for the amount specified in the notice. In other words, failure to respond to the garnishment notice effectively places the receivable under the custody of the third party, making it accountable as if it belonged to the debtor.

To illustrate this distinction, the Court of Cassation, in one of its rulings, emphasized that[2]:

“Following the finalization of the enforcement proceeding, the creditor may request the attachment of the debtor’s existing receivables held by a third party by sending a seizure order pursuant to Article 78 and subsequent provisions of the İİK, or may request attachment by sending a garnishment notice under Article 89. However, the attachment of receivables that are likely to arise in the future from a third party is possible only through a seizure order issued under Article 78 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.”

In other words, the attachment and reporting of future receivables to the creditor can only be carried out through a Seizure Order[3].

This point has also been clarified by the same chamber of the Court of Cassation[4]:

“Since it is not possible for third parties to know with certainty any future or contingent rights (such as routine payments like rent receivables) at this stage, a garnishment notice cannot produce legal effect on such potential receivables. The attachment of receivables that are likely to arise in the future from a third party is therefore only possible through a seizure order issued under Article 78 Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.”

Accordingly, there are clear differences both in legal nature and in practical effect between a garnishment notice issued under Article 89 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and a seizure order issued under Article 78 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

A garnishment notice directly imposes liability on the third party, and if the third party fails to respond within the prescribed period, it can be held personally liable to the same extent as the debtor for the specified amount. In this sense, it effectively creates a form of “deemed indebtedness” for the third party. However, this legal consequence arises only when the receivable is existing and due.

In contrast, a seizure order does not make the third party a debtor. It simply allows the enforcement office, at the creditor’s request, to attach the debtor’s rights or assets, whether existing or likely to arise in the future. A third party served with a seizure order is obliged to execute the attachment only if there is an actual, existing value (e.g., account balance, accrued receivable, undelivered goods) and report it to the enforcement office. If no such value exists, the third party must declare this in writing.

As emphasized in the rulings of the Court of Cassation, a garnishment notice has no legal effect on potential or future receivables, since it is impossible for the third party to know about or respond to a debt that has not yet arisen. In such cases, the creditor must resort to a seizure order regulated under Article 78 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

IV. The Nature of Responses and Their Implementation in Practice

We can clearly understand the significance of the responses provided by banks to attachment notices in practice from the decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation on this matter[5];

“If, in response to an attachment notice sent pursuant to Article 89 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a third-party bank asserts that it holds a lien on the debtor’s account, this constitutes an objection to the attachment notice. In such a case, the creditor may, under Article 89/4 of the İİK, request that the enforcement court verify the third party’s claim, impose penalties if the claim is found false, and additionally seek compensation. On the other hand, if the third party asserts, in response to an attachment writ, that it has a lien on the debtor’s account, this constitutes a claim of ownership, and the enforcement officer must proceed in accordance with the ownership claim procedure.” as established in case law.

A response to an attachment notice constitutes merely an objection. For example, when a bank states, ‘I have a lien on the debtor’s account,’ it does not claim ownership of the receivable but merely indicates a limited proprietary right in favor of the bank regarding the attached claim. If the creditor considers the bank’s response to be false, they may, under Article 89/4 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, petition the enforcement court to have the third party penalized and held liable for damages. By contrast, a response to an attachment writ issued directly by the enforcement office, which seizes the debtor’s assets, rights, or receivables held by a third party, is subject to a different legal regime. If the third party declares, for instance, that it holds a lien on the debtor’s account, this constitutes a claim of ownership (istihkak) rather than an objection.

Since the attachment effectively establishes control over the receivable, any assertion by the third party that the attachment interferes with its rights triggers the ownership claim procedure under Articles 96 et seq. of the İİK. The practice of sending attachment notices (Article 89) or writs (Article 78) to third parties, particularly banks, is one of the most burdensome aspects of enforcement proceedings and has, at times, resulted in divergent interpretations among the various Chambers of the Court of Cassation.

Whether the bank receives an ‘attachment notice’ or an ‘attachment writ,’ its duty in both cases is the same: if the debtor has any rights or receivables with the bank, the bank must place a lien on them; if the debtor has no rights or receivables with the bank, the bank is required to inform the enforcement office of this situation[6]. If an attachment writ is sent to the bank and the bank fails to notify the enforcement office within the seven-day period that the debtor has no deposits at the bank, the amount is not considered to be embezzled by the bank.

However, if an attachment notice is sent to the bank and the bank does not object to the ‘first’ and ‘second’ notices within the seven-day period, and also does not file a ‘negative declaratory action’ within 15 days in response to the ‘third’ notice, the bank is obliged to pay the amount specified in the notice to the enforcement office, which will be considered as embezzled.

In either case -whether in response to an attachment writ or an attachment notice- if the debtor has an account at the bank, the bank may place a lien on that account while also asserting that a lien or pledge right exists on the deposit. Such a declaration by the bank constitutes a claim of ownership over the seized asset under Article 99 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law

CONCLUSION

*“The most significant difference between an attachment writ and an attachment notice lies in the liability of the third party. An attachment writ imposes only notification and procedural obligations on the third party, whereas an attachment notice may, if not responded to within the prescribed period or if false information is provided, render the third party directly liable as the debtor. Therefore, an attachment notice carries far more severe legal consequences.

In practice, banks may be subject to both types of attachment. The bank must correctly assess the nature of the document it receives: in response to an attachment writ, it should merely report any existing or future receivables, while in response to an attachment notice, it must provide an accurate and complete reply within the deadline to avoid potential liability. Otherwise, under Articles 89/3 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the bank may be held directly responsible for amounts considered embezzled.

In conclusion, correctly understanding the legal distinction between an attachment writ and an attachment notice not only enhances the creditor’s ability to collect but also makes the liability regime of third-party banks predictable. Case law and practice demonstrate that this distinction is not merely theoretical but has serious practical consequences. Therefore, enforcement offices, creditors, and especially banks must carefully evaluate the scope and effects of both types of attachment.