Search for the debtor’s assets: a tool or an illusion of efficiency?

When an individual or a company wins a case in court, it is logical to expect that the decision will be enforced. However, the reality in Ukraine is more complicated: judgments often remain on paper, and their enforcement depends on many factors, the key one being the existence and accessibility of the debtor’s assets. This is precisely what the procedure of declaring the debtor’s property “wanted” is intended for.

It is a legal mechanism that allows an enforcement officer to determine the location of assets, verify their condition, and seize them. This applies not only to real estate or vehicles but also to cash, corporate rights, securities, or other property. The goal is simple and clear: to give the creditor a real chance to obtain what the court has awarded, rather than wait for years.

How asset search works

The procedure begins with the creditor’s application to a state or private enforcement officer. Then follow requests to registries, banks, and other bodies, on-site verification of information and, if successful, seizure of the located assets.

In practice, enforcement officers use such sources as:

• State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate;
• registries of vehicles and companies;
• banking registries;
• information from tax and pension authorities.

The system looks logical. But in reality, it is not without problems.

Human factor and the position of the Constitutional Court

Despite digitalization, the effectiveness of enforcement proceedings still depends on the professionalism and persistence of a particular officer. Automation is lacking, while bureaucracy remains excessive. This creates space for delays and abuses.

Back in 2019, the Constitutional Court in its decision No. 2-r(II)/2019 emphasized: mandatory enforcement of court decisions is an integral part of the constitutional right to judicial protection. The state is obliged to create mechanisms that ensure full and timely enforcement of judgments; otherwise, the very right to a fair trial loses its meaning.

This conclusion goes far beyond one particular case: it obliges the state and its bodies to constantly improve enforcement tools.

Systemic problems

Among the positive changes of recent years, the introduction of electronic seizure of funds should be noted. This is a real breakthrough that accelerated the process and reduced the risk of manipulations. But further reforms are moving slowly.

Many issues remain unresolved:

• The search for a debtor–individual is still governed by the outdated Ministry of Internal Affairs Procedure of 2008, which refers to divisions liquidated more than ten years ago.
• Asset search often boils down to formal requests and depends on the goodwill of the bodies holding the information.
• Enforcement officers’ access to registries is limited: for example, they cannot directly obtain data from the Inheritance Register or the Register of Transactions, although this is often where information on “withdrawn” assets is hidden.
• Police work in the field of debtor search is purely declarative — in reality, no one is actually looking for the debtor.

As for the international level, the current legislation does not provide any mechanism for searching for a debtor or their assets abroad. Therefore, if a person has left Ukraine or hidden assets in another jurisdiction, the enforcement officer is practically powerless.

Enforcement officer as a “detective”

In fact, state and private enforcement officers have long turned into “detectives.” When state mechanisms do not work, they are forced to personally verify the debtor’s address, talk to neighbors, or look for information on hidden assets. Without this, many cases would remain dead weight.

Such a state of affairs contradicts the logic of a rule-of-law state: enforcement of court judgments should not depend on the personal enthusiasm of an officer or random circumstances. It must be a systematic, streamlined, and technological procedure.

Why this matters for creditors

For businesses and individuals, declaring assets “wanted” is often the last chance to recover funds. Its advantages are clear:

• the ability to identify hidden assets;
• acceleration of the collection process;
• creation of legal pressure on the debtor;
• real protection of the creditor’s interests.

But under imperfect legislation, these advantages are realized only partially.

Conclusion

The search for the debtor’s assets is an important and necessary tool in enforcement proceedings. It is intended to turn a court judgment into a tangible result for the creditor. However, today its effectiveness depends less on the law and more on the enforcement officer and sheer luck.