Pre-Judgment Seizure

Merel is a partner at a mid-sized law firm in Amsterdam. She has twenty years of experience in commercial litigation, but the case on her desk right now keeps her awake at night.

Her client holds a documented and legally strong claim of \u20AC340,000 against a former business partner. In theory, a solid case. But Merel knows from experience: a court victory is worthless if there is nothing left to execute against.

The defendant, an import-export entrepreneur, has emptied his Dutch bank accounts over the past few months. His company holds no relevant assets. His property is in his partner’s name. And there are signals pointing to foreign holdings — Cyprus, possibly Dubai. The classic picture of someone reorganising assets ahead of a judgment.

Merel considers applying for a pre-judgment seizure. But without insight into recoverable assets, it is an expensive gamble. Seizing empty accounts, reputational risk before the court, and her client bearing the costs. She needs evidence. Not assumptions.

She contacts a firm specialising in asset tracing. She is clear about her expectations: she wants to know where the assets are, not what anyone thinks about it. Concrete, verifiable, admissible before a judge. Her reputation is at stake — and so is her client’s.

What makes the difference

Pre-judgment seizure without asset insight is strategically risky. Targeted investigation maximises the chance of execution and protects the legal positions of all parties involved.

Financial context

Claims in this segment range from \u20AC100,000 to \u20AC500,000 and beyond. The cost of an asset investigation is a fraction of the risk of an empty execution.