TerraLex Cross-Border Guide to Guide to Tracing Assets Around the World

The process of tracing and identifying assets involves obtaining information on their ownership and location, which can be done using a variety of methods. One way is to access public registers or databases (described in more detail below). Social networks such as Facebook, X, or LinkedIn, where individuals show off their lifestyles and connections, can also become a source of information on assets that can be traced. Another way is to file a request to disclose assets. Such a request should be filed with a court of general jurisdiction of the debtor, which means that in the vast majority of cases, the court with jurisdiction to hear the request will be the court of the debtor's place of residence (registered seat) or the location of his assets. Such a request is filed by the creditor, but in cases where enforcement has been initiated ex officio, the bailiff (pl., “komornik”) may also do so.

However, it should be noted that, as a rule, the role of the bailiff is not to search for the debtor's assets. It is the creditor who should indicate in the request for enforcement the components of the debtor's assets and the means of enforcement. If the creditor does not know the debtor's assets, he can have the bailiff search for them for an additional fee. In this case, the starting point in tracing the debtor’s assets by the bailiff would be to check the public registers and if this turns out to be ineffective, the bailiff may request information about the assets (in particular, the debtor’s bank accounts) from banks, tax authorities, Social Insurance Institution (pl., “Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych”, ZUS), as well as other private and public entities.

If it becomes probable that it will be impossible to satisfy the creditor in the enforcement proceedings, the creditor has the option of filing the above-mentioned request for disclosure of the debtor's assets. The debtor, upon the order of the court, shall submit a list of all his assets, listing the things and the place where they are located, the receivables, and other property rights accruing to him. If the debtor fails to submit the list of assets upon the court's order, the court may impose a fine on him.

In Poland, we have a number of useful public registers (domains) that can be used to trace assets. These are a good starting point and the information obtained from such sites can be helpful to trace other assets.

Such registers include in particular:

Land and mortgage registers

Land and mortgage registers (pl., “księgi wieczyste”) allow for checking who holds rights to a particular property. The content of the registers is deemed conclusive as to the legal title to the property.

There is not a single central land and mortgage register, but every Polish District Court maintains the register for its area of responsibility. Therefore, it is not possible to search all of the Polish land registries. The creditor has to know the location of the property and the number of the particular property for the search.

Access to land and mortgage registers is public. Anyone who knows the land register number of a particular property can view it using the online browser available on the official website: https://przegladarka-ekw.ms.gov.pl/

Commercial register

Another register that is worth mentioning is the commercial register (pl., “Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy”), which allows the creditor to verify whether the debtor owns shares in a certain company, as well as to determine the financial standing of that company. In this way, it is possible to identify a link between the debtor and the company that may be repositories for his assets, which could be a target for enforcement.

Access to the commercial register is also public. Anyone who knows the name of the company or its registration number can view it using the online browser available on the official website: https://wyszukiwarka-krs.ms.gov.pl/. This also includes financial documents of companies (including financial statements and management reports), which can be found, viewed, and downloaded at: https://ekrs.ms.gov.pl/rdf/pd/search_df

Central Register of Vehicles and Drivers

The Central Register of Vehicles and Drivers (pl., “Centralna Ewidencja Pojazdów i Kierowców”) contains information on vehicles registered in Poland and persons with Polish driving licences. Information on vehicles registered in Poland is provided at the request of the interested party, in which one must demonstrate, among other things, a legal interest in obtaining the information.

As against third parties

Under Polish law, there are no direct judicial means to obtain information on asset holders. To determine asset holders, the creditor can use available documents (bank transfers, contracts, e-mails, etc.), public registers, or any other public databases.

As against the wrongdoer/adverse party

The creditor should indicate in the request for enforcement the components of the debtor's assets and methods of enforcement. Information or indications of the debtor’s assets (such as bank accounts) can usually be found in documents relating to a particular (business) relationship with the debtor (bank transfers, contracts, e-mails, etc.). To determine the debtor’s assets the creditor may also use public registers or databases. The creditor may also hire a private detective company specializing in the search for assets and sources of income.

If the creditor has no knowledge of the debtor's assets or has difficulty determining these assets, he may have a bailiff search for them for an additional fee. A creditor may also request the court to disclose the debtor's assets, among other things, if the debtor's assets seized in enforcement proceedings are too small to satisfy the creditor, or if it becomes probable before enforcement is initiated that the creditor will not obtain full satisfaction of its claim from the known assets of the debtor.

In cross-border cases within the European Union (excluding Denmark), it is also possible to make a request for obtaining of account information together with an application for a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014.

In Poland, interim measures to secure claims are regulated in the Code of Civil Procedure (pl., Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, KPC) of 1964.

Interim injunctions are basically divided into two types, depending on types of claim. Security for monetary claims can be granted in the forms listed explicitly in the KPC, which provides, e.g., for freezing injunctions. Claims of a non-monetary character, on the other hand, can be secured by any method that the court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the given case.

An interim injunction is granted in a form of a court order upon an application made by the creditor (claimant). In some cases (i.e., where proceedings can be initiated ex officio, like in family and guardianship cases), an interim injunction may be granted ex officio.

Under Polish law, an interim injunction may be demanded in any civil case before a common court or arbitration tribunal. Polish courts can also secure claims for foreign proceedings under the Regulation No. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the “Recast Brussels I Regulation”).

The demand for interim injunction can be made before the initiation of the proceedings as well as at any stage of the proceedings.

The application for an interim injunction must indicate the method of security sought (e.g., mortgage on a real estate, seizure of movable property, etc.) and (in cases involving monetary claims) the value of the security. The claimant must also substantiate the circumstances justifying the application and demonstrate his legal interest in securing his claim. If the application is filed before initiation of the main proceeding, the subject of the case should also be presented briefly.

The value of the assets covered by an interim injunction may not be greater than the claim pursued, with interest up to the date of issuance of the decision on security, together with the costs of security. This amount may also include the costs of the proceedings.

Under Polish law, in all civil cases before either a state court or by the arbitration tribunal, each party may demand that the court issue a freezing injunction, by which we mean an interim court order which prevents the other party from disposing of its assets, to secure its claims.

A freezing injunction is available in Poland upon application, which is usually made prior to court proceedings being initiated. However, a freezing injunction can be also sought in the course of proceedings or even after judgment is given, to prevent the disposal of assets before the judgment is enforced.

In Poland, the court has wide discretion to grant a freezing injunction and will do so only when it considers that it is necessary.

In order to obtain a freezing injunction, the applying party must substantiate the claim and the legal interest in obtaining security. In practice, it means that the applicant (claimant) must demonstrate to the court that:

• he has a good arguable case, meaning that he needs to show that his claim is justified and highly probable and

• without securing his claim, the enforcement of the court decision will not be possible or will be significantly impeded, meaning that he needs to show that there is a real risk that the other party (defendant) will conceal or dispose of its assets, thus preventing or hindering satisfaction of a judgment in the applicant’s favour.

When deciding on a freezing injunction, the court analyzes the evidence and the arguments raised by the applicant (the potential defendant is not aware of the application, so he will not be able to make any statement at this stage). When doing so the court seeks a balance between providing legal protection for the entitled party and avoiding an unnecessary burden for the obliged party.

It is prohibited to award a freezing injunction in cases against the State Treasury.

In Poland, the list of available freezing injunctions securing monetary claims includes:

• seizure of movable property, remuneration for work, money in a bank account, or other amounts due or property rights;

• encumbering the obliged party’s real estate with a forced mortgage;

• prohibiting the disposal and/or encumbrance of a real estate that is not registered in a land and mortgage register or in which case a land and mortgage register has been lost or destroyed;

• encumbering a ship or a ship under construction with a maritime mortgage;

• prohibiting the disposal of cooperative ownership rights to premises;

• establishment of a compulsory administration over the obliged party’s enterprise or farm, or a plant comprising part of the enterprise, or over a part of the enterprise or the farm.

In case of non-monetary claims, the court shall grant a security that is deemed appropriate according to the circumstances. This includes, e.g., a prohibition on the disposal of objects or rights involved in the proceedings.

In Poland, there is a general rule that the court competent to issue an interim injunction, including a freezing injunction, is the court which would be competent to hear the case as the court of first instance (i.e., the district court or the regional court, as the case may be). If it is impossible to determine such a court, then an injunction is granted by the locally competent regional court. If it is impossible to determine such a court, then jurisdiction lies within the competence of the district court for the Capital City of Warsaw. If the case is pending, an application for an interim injunction is examined by the court before which the case is pending (court of first or second instance). The exception applies to proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, in which case an application for an interim injunction is decided by the court of first instance.

As provided under Article 35 of the Recast Brussels I Regulation, a Polish court may order an interim injunction also when a court in another EU Member State is competent to hear the case.

Polish law does not provide for a search order or any similar measure in civil cases.

If there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime connected with a civil claim at hand, the creditor (claimant) may press criminal charges against the debtor (defendant) and, therewith, involve the criminal court or prosecutor, who has the means to track and secure assets, including search orders and seizure orders.

In Poland, it is possible to apply for an interim injunction, including a freezing injunction, to ensure the effective enforcement of a foreign court decision or arbitration award. This is done using the standard procedure under the KPC described in the previous parts of this guide.

In addition, an application for an interim injunction, including a freezing injunction, may also be made if the main proceedings fall within the jurisdiction of another EU Member State (and not within the jurisdiction of Polish courts). Such a possibility is provided for by Article 35 of the Recast Brussels I Regulation.

Yes, however, the enforcement procedure differs depending on whether we are dealing with interim (freezing) injunctions issued by an EU or non-EU court.

When it comes to interim (freezing) injunctions issued within the EU, the Recast Brussels I Regulation allows the creditor (claimant) to directly enforce a judgment against his debtor (defendant) without first having to obtain an exequatur (i.e., a declaration of enforceability from a competent authority), provided that this judgment has been issued in another EU Member State and is considered enforceable in the country of origin. That is because judgments issued by courts of other EU Member States are so-called ‘enforcement titles’ in Poland. It means that the procedure for enforcement of these judgments is practically the same as in the case of Polish judgments.

The procedure is slightly different if the enforcement is based on a non-EU judgment. First, the creditor must obtain an exequatur. To do this, the creditor should submit an application to the Polish court, which may either grant or deny the enforcement. The latter may happen, e.g., if the judgment is not final in the state in which it was issued or the recognition of the judgment would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland (public policy clause). Once the exequatur is granted, the enforcement of the judgment would be essentially the same as that of a judgment issued by a UE court.