Originally from Attachment of Assets

Preview Page

1. What is the general nature and effect of judicial measures available for plaintiffs to obtain provisional relief affecting property of debtors to obtain security for judgments to be obtained (“attachments”)? Freezing property in place? Placing it in the custody of a third party, such as a court official, sheriff or marshall? 

In Indonesia, where a plaintiff believes that there is a strong likelihood that a defendant will dissipate assets in such a way as to frustrate future enforcement action, the plaintiff may apply to the authorized Indonesian court for relief.  

Usually, relief from the dissipation of assets is a security attachment (sita jaminan), the effect of which is to confer a security interest over the attached assets to secure an eventual judgment. The court also has broad, inherent powers to order injunctive relief, which can be used to prohibit the transfer of assets. 

Notice of the security interest created by a security attachment can be served on interested third parties, which will, in practice, act as a freezing order. For example, once a bank is put on notice of a conservatory attachment over funds in the defendant’s account opened in such bank, the bank will be prevented from allowing the transfer of those funds (by the defendant) until the security attachment is released by the court. 

There is no general ability to appoint a court bailiff or curator over the property. Usually, assets will be kept with the defendant or, if in the possession of a third party, with that party. The court may also exercise its discretion to order that assets be relocated to a more suitable location; however, these will remain under the control of the defendant or third party. Rules of court provide for the attachment to be notified to the local police, who have a duty to prevent the assets from being dissipated.1