

A foreign company has no bank accounts or physical assets in Turkey but has receivables from Turkish customers. Learn how creditors can attach those receivables, third-party notices, payment consequences and defenses.
A foreign company may have no office, real estate, vehicle, machinery or significant bank balance in Turkey but still possess valuable receivables from Turkish customers, distributors, contractors or other debtors. From an enforcement perspective, these receivables can be important assets. The absence of physical property does not necessarily prevent a creditor from pursuing enforcement in Turkey. Under Turkish enforcement law, monetary claims owed to the debtor by third parties may potentially be attached, and the third-party attachment-notice mechanism is particularly important in this context.
Potentially, yes. If a company subject to enforcement has a receivable against a third party, that receivable can potentially become the subject of attachment.
For example, assume a foreign company is owed EUR 500,000 by a Turkish distributor. If a creditor is pursuing the foreign company through a legally effective Turkish enforcement proceeding, the distributor’s payment obligation may become an important enforcement target.
The creditor does not necessarily need to locate a warehouse or bank account first.
A third-party receivable exists when another person or company owes money to the enforcement debtor.
Common examples involving foreign companies include:
Turkish customer invoices, distributor payments, construction receivables, consultancy fees, licensing income, commissions, rent, service fees, insurance receivables, shareholder-related receivables and amounts owed under commercial contracts.
Article 89 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law provides an important procedure for attaching rights and receivables held by third parties.
In practice, the enforcement office may serve an attachment notice on the third party believed to owe money to the debtor.
The procedure can place the third party in a legally sensitive position because it can no longer simply ignore the enforcement proceeding.
Assume Foreign Company A sold industrial equipment to Turkish Company B.
Turkish Company B still owes EUR 200,000.
Creditor C has an enforceable claim against Foreign Company A.
Instead of attempting to locate Foreign Company A’s physical assets, Creditor C may seek attachment of the EUR 200,000 receivable owed by Turkish Company B.
The focus of enforcement therefore shifts from the debtor’s possessions to money that another party owes the debtor.
The answer depends on the legal nature and maturity of the underlying receivable.
Existing contractual rights, accrued receivables and certain future payments arising from an existing legal relationship may require detailed analysis. A creditor should identify the underlying contract and payment structure rather than simply describing all future business income as attachable.
The creditor may already know the foreign company’s Turkish customers through previous commercial relations, contracts, litigation, invoices or other lawful sources.
Information obtained during enforcement proceedings may also help identify potential assets and receivables.
The third-party debtor should treat the notice seriously.
The recipient must examine whether it actually owes money to the enforcement debtor, the amount owed, whether payment has already been made and whether another legally relevant circumstance affects the receivable.
Ignoring the notice can create significant procedural consequences.
Once an effective attachment affects the receivable, continuing to pay the foreign company as though nothing happened can create serious risk for the third party.
The recipient should immediately determine what the enforcement notice requires.
If the recipient genuinely has no debt to the foreign company, it should use the applicable objection mechanism within the statutory procedure.
The company should preserve contracts, invoices, payment records, account statements and other evidence supporting its position.
The payment date can become critical.
If the customer paid the foreign company before the relevant attachment became effective, evidence of the earlier payment should be preserved.
Bank records and accounting documents may become important.
A receivable claimed by the foreign company may itself be disputed.
For example, the Turkish customer may argue that goods were defective, contractual penalties apply or the foreign company has not completed its contractual obligations.
The enforcement implications should then be assessed together with the underlying commercial dispute.
The Turkish customer may claim that it possesses its own receivable against the foreign company and that set-off affects the amount payable.
Whether this defeats or reduces the attached receivable depends on the underlying facts, timing and applicable substantive and enforcement rules.
Documentation is critical.
Potentially.
If the same Turkish company owes the foreign debtor money under multiple contracts, the legal position of each receivable should be reviewed.
The attachment should not automatically be treated as covering amounts that do not legally belong to the enforcement debtor.
Potentially, yes.
A creditor who identifies multiple Turkish customers may seek enforcement measures against different third parties, subject to the applicable procedural rules and proportionality of enforcement.
This can be particularly effective where the foreign company operates in Turkey primarily through customer receivables rather than permanent assets.
The fact that the enforcement debtor is incorporated outside Turkey does not by itself make a Turkish receivable immune from enforcement.
Jurisdiction, enforceability of the underlying title and the location and nature of the asset must nevertheless be examined in the particular case.
Before focusing on attachment, the creditor must establish the procedural basis for enforcement.
If the claim is based on a foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award, recognition, enforcement or other preliminary legal questions may arise depending on the instrument and circumstances.
A foreign judgment should not simply be treated as automatically executable through a Turkish enforcement office.
International commercial contracts frequently contain foreign court or arbitration clauses.
The creditor should therefore review dispute-resolution provisions before commencing enforcement in Turkey.
Where the creditor relies on an arbitral award, the applicable enforcement framework must be examined.
The existence of Turkish receivables may make Turkey commercially important as an enforcement jurisdiction even where the original dispute was resolved abroad.
Depending on the circumstances, provisional protective measures may potentially become relevant.
However, provisional attachment and ordinary enforcement attachment are different procedures with separate legal requirements.
The creditor should not assume that an unproven commercial claim automatically permits immediate seizure of the foreign company’s Turkish receivables.
Where there is a risk that the debtor will collect or transfer the receivable before enforcement can be completed, the availability of precautionary attachment may need to be evaluated.
Timing can be decisive because receivables can disappear rapidly once payment is made.
Changing the bank account designated for payment does not necessarily eliminate an attachment affecting the underlying receivable.
The asset being targeted is the claim against the customer, not merely the bank account into which payment would otherwise be made.
Assignments made before or during enforcement require careful examination.
A genuine prior assignment can materially affect ownership of the receivable. By contrast, transfers designed to remove assets from creditors may generate separate disputes and potentially expose the transaction to avoidance or other creditor remedies.
If the foreign debtor suddenly assigns Turkish receivables to its parent company, shareholder, affiliate or another related entity after a dispute begins, creditors may investigate the transaction closely.
The contract, consideration, payment and timing should all be preserved.
A foreign company should not assume that simply issuing an assignment agreement will make the asset unreachable.
Where the transaction is alleged to be fictitious or prejudicial to creditors, separate proceedings may arise.
Where the attachment procedure becomes effective and the third party acknowledges or is legally treated as owing the attached amount, payment may ultimately need to be made according to the enforcement process rather than directly to the foreign company.
The third party should follow the formal enforcement instructions carefully.
This can expose the customer to the risk of having to deal with the creditor’s enforcement claim despite having already transferred money to the foreign company.
That is why attachment notices should immediately be sent to the company’s legal and finance departments.
Large Turkish companies may receive enforcement notices concerning suppliers and counterparties regularly.
The company should immediately identify the underlying supplier, freeze potentially affected payments where legally appropriate, review its accounting ledger and obtain legal assessment before the statutory response period expires.
The debtor company should obtain the enforcement file and determine which receivables have been attached.
It should check whether the creditor’s enforcement is valid, whether the debt has been paid, whether the amount is excessive and whether available objections or complaints exist.
Enforcement should be considered in light of the amount necessary to satisfy the enforcement claim and related expenses.
Where measures are manifestly excessive, the debtor may need to evaluate procedural remedies concerning disproportionate attachment.
Foreign companies frequently invoice Turkish customers in euros or US dollars.
The fact that the receivable is denominated in foreign currency does not by itself make it immune from enforcement. The enforcement consequences and calculation should be examined according to the underlying claim and file.
Where the foreign company has a receivable from a public institution or state-related entity, special statutory rules or restrictions may potentially become relevant.
These receivables should not automatically be treated identically to an ordinary private commercial invoice.
A payment that becomes due only after acceptance, delivery, commissioning or another contractual milestone requires analysis of whether the underlying receivable has legally arisen and become payable.
The attachment cannot be evaluated accurately without reviewing the contract.
Construction and infrastructure contracts frequently include retention payments and warranty holdbacks.
Whether these amounts can presently be collected through enforcement depends on the contractual conditions and maturity of the receivable.
A foreign manufacturer selling through a Turkish distributor may have recurring receivables arising from multiple shipments.
For creditors, these can represent an important enforcement source. For the debtor, interruption of distributor payments can also create immediate cash-flow pressure.
If a foreign company licenses intellectual property to a Turkish business, royalty payments may potentially constitute receivables relevant to enforcement.
The license agreement and payment calculation should be examined carefully.
A foreign company may possess claims against an insurer in Turkey.
Depending on the nature and status of the insurance claim, such rights may also require examination as potential enforcement assets.
If a Turkish subsidiary owes money to its foreign shareholder, the creditor may investigate whether the foreign shareholder possesses an attachable receivable against the subsidiary.
Accounting records and intercompany agreements can become central evidence.
Loans made by a foreign parent company to a Turkish subsidiary can create substantial receivables.
If the foreign parent becomes an enforcement debtor, these intercompany rights may become relevant assets.
The subsidiary must assess the enforcement notice independently.
Corporate affiliation does not eliminate its procedural obligations as a third party.
Where a legally existing dividend receivable has arisen in favor of the debtor, it may potentially become an enforcement target.
The distinction between an existing dividend entitlement and merely expected future corporate profits is important.
A creditor seeking to attach Turkish receivables should organize the enforcement title, contracts, invoices, correspondence identifying customers, payment schedules and information demonstrating the existence of the receivable.
Specific evidence is generally more useful than speculative requests concerning unidentified third parties.
The debtor should preserve customer contracts, payment records, assignments, set-off agreements, credit notes and accounting ledgers.
These documents can determine whether a particular attached receivable actually exists and its correct amount.
The third-party customer should keep the contract, invoices, delivery documents, payments, deductions, objections, returns and correspondence.
The customer should be able to demonstrate precisely what it owed on the relevant date.
The creditor should first confirm an enforceable basis in Turkey, identify Turkish counterparties owing money to the foreign debtor, determine the legal status of those receivables, seek appropriate attachment measures promptly and monitor third-party responses.
The foreign company should obtain the enforcement file immediately, identify every customer affected by an attachment, review the validity and amount of the creditor’s claim, protect applicable objection rights, coordinate customer communications and avoid transfers that could later be characterized as fictitious or designed to frustrate enforcement.
A Turkish customer receiving a third-party attachment notice should not ignore it or continue normal payment procedures automatically. It should immediately check the statutory response period, identify the amount genuinely owed, preserve supporting records and submit any necessary objection accurately and on time.
Potentially, yes. Receivables against third parties can be subject to attachment under Turkish enforcement procedures.
Not necessarily. A receivable itself can constitute an economically valuable enforcement asset.
Potentially, where the procedural requirements for third-party receivable attachment are satisfied.
It should immediately determine whether and how much it owes, review the notice and comply with the applicable objection or payment procedure.
The third party should protect its position through the applicable statutory procedure and preserve evidence showing that no debt exists.
Changing the payment account does not necessarily remove an attachment affecting the underlying receivable.
The effect depends on the timing, validity and substance of the assignment. Transactions intended to prejudice creditors can generate separate legal disputes.
The answer depends on the legal basis, existence and nature of the underlying contractual right. Expected future business income should not automatically be treated as an existing receivable.
Potentially, where an enforceable receivable belonging to the debtor exists and the applicable attachment requirements are satisfied.
A foreign company does not need to own buildings, vehicles or bank balances in Turkey to have assets exposed to enforcement. If Turkish customers, distributors, subsidiaries or other counterparties owe money to the company, those receivables can become a central target of Turkish enforcement proceedings.
International enforcement disputes frequently involve third-party receivables, Article 89 attachment notices, Turkish customers, distributors, intercompany loans, royalty payments, precautionary attachment and cross-border enforcement questions. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign companies, creditors and Turkish third parties in enforcement proceedings involving receivables located in Turkey. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in identifying attachable receivables, responding to third-party attachment notices, challenging improper enforcement measures, protecting foreign-company assets and pursuing cross-border commercial claims.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey