With increasing cross-border mobility and business activity in multiple countries, creditors may face a situation where a debtor moves abroad after the debt has arisen or even after a court judgment has already been obtained. This makes recovery more complicated, but it does not in itself make enforcement impossible.
The issue may arise both when recovering money directly from an individual and where a court judgment has been issued against a person liable for the obligations of a legal entity, including a person held jointly and severally or subsidiarily liable for the company’s debts.
Where such liability arose in insolvency proceedings or on another special legal basis, the possibility of recognising and enforcing the relevant judgment abroad should be assessed separately under the law of the particular country and the applicable international instruments.
The first step in international debt collection is to determine the jurisdiction in which enforcement should be pursued. In practice, this depends primarily on the debtor’s actual place of residence and the location of their assets abroad.
How to determine the country where the judgment should be enforced
Knowing the country where the debtor lives does not necessarily mean that it is the most effective jurisdiction for recovery.
It is important to establish where the debtor actually resides and whether they have bank accounts, real estate, movable property, shares or interests in companies, rights to receive dividends or other assets that may be subject to enforcement under local law.
A debtor may live in one country, own real estate in another and use bank accounts in a third. In such circumstances, the creditor should determine where the most liquid assets are located and in which jurisdiction enforcement is likely to make practical and economic sense.
Before applying to a foreign court or commencing enforcement proceedings, evidence may be required to demonstrate the debtor’s connection with the relevant country or the existence of assets there. The requirements for such evidence differ from one jurisdiction to another.
Therefore, if the creditor knows only the approximate country where the debtor is located or has unofficial information about assets, particular attention should be given to establishing and documenting those facts before commencing the recognition procedure.
How to establish the debtor’s residence and assets
Access to property information varies considerably between countries. Some land and corporate registers are publicly accessible, while others provide information only where certain identifying details are known, through a lawyer or enforcement officer, or on the basis of a court order.
Depending on the jurisdiction and the procedure involved, evidence of the debtor’s residence or activities may include information from official registers, corporate records, court documents and other publicly available sources.
In individual cases, additional evidence may include online and social media publications, information concerning the debtor’s business activities, employment or ownership of property, as well as the results of a lawfully conducted asset investigation.
For example, where there are grounds to believe that a debtor is based in England and Wales, publicly available information about the debtor’s business activities, employment, property or other continuing connections with that jurisdiction may form part of the evidential picture. The admissibility and sufficiency of such evidence will, however, depend on the applicable local procedural rules.
Registration with a Ukrainian consular authority may also have some evidential relevance in establishing a person’s connection with a particular country. However, a creditor’s ability to obtain personal information through Ukrainian state authorities is restricted by personal data protection rules and other applicable access requirements.
On what basis can a Ukrainian judgment be recognised abroad
Once the relevant country has been identified, the next step is to determine the legal basis for recognition and enforcement of the Ukrainian court judgment.
This may be an international convention, a bilateral or multilateral treaty binding Ukraine and the relevant country or, where no applicable treaty exists, the domestic law of the country where enforcement is sought. In some legal systems, the principle of reciprocity may also be relevant.
An important development in recent years has been the entry into force of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.
The Convention has been in force for Ukraine since 1 September 2023. From the same date, it has applied in relations between Ukraine and the EU Member States bound by the Convention, except Denmark. For the United Kingdom, the Convention entered into force on 1 July 2025.
However, the fact that a state is a party to the Convention does not mean that it automatically applies to every Ukrainian judgment. It is necessary to examine the subject matter of the dispute, the date on which the proceedings resulting in the judgment were instituted, as well as any exclusions and declarations relevant to the particular state.
Judgments connected with insolvency and bankruptcy require separate analysis. Accordingly, where recovery is sought from a controlling person on the basis of a judgment imposing subsidiary liability within insolvency proceedings, the mechanism for recognition and enforcement abroad should be determined individually.
If the Hague Convention or another international treaty does not apply, the domestic law of the relevant state must be examined. That law will determine whether the Ukrainian judgment can be recognised, which court has jurisdiction, what documents must be submitted and on what grounds recognition may be refused.
What happens after the Ukrainian judgment is recognised
If a foreign court recognises the Ukrainian judgment and permits its enforcement, the next stage is governed by the enforcement law of that country.
Available measures may include freezing or attaching funds in bank accounts, enforcement against real estate or movable property, attachment of the debtor’s income and recovery against other assets belonging to the debtor.
Corporate assets may represent a separate source of recovery. If the debtor is a shareholder or member of a foreign company, depending on the applicable local law, enforcement measures may potentially be directed against shares, ownership interests, dividends or other property rights arising from participation in the company.
For this reason, asset tracing should not be limited to real estate and bank accounts. It may also be necessary to investigate the debtor’s interests in local companies, corporate rights and income received from those businesses.
The specific procedure for freezing, restricting the disposal of or realising such assets is determined by the law of the country where enforcement takes place.
If the debtor uses accounts in another country
A practical difficulty can arise where the debtor lives and conducts business in one country but uses accounts maintained by financial institutions in another jurisdiction.
This may include accounts provided through international banks, digital banking platforms or payment services such as Wise, Revolut, Paysera and similar providers.
The name of the service alone is not sufficient to determine the relevant enforcement jurisdiction. It is necessary to establish the specific legal entity with which the debtor’s account is opened or maintained, since an international financial service may operate through different legal entities depending on the customer’s country of residence and the type of service provided.
If the funds are actually held or recorded by a financial institution in another country, separate enforcement steps may be required in that jurisdiction.
One of the principal difficulties is obtaining admissible evidence that a particular account belongs to the debtor.
Banking and payment information is generally not publicly available. The possibilities for obtaining it therefore depend on the law of the relevant country and the court or enforcement procedures available there.
Where the debtor has assets in several countries, it may be necessary to seek recognition and enforcement of the Ukrainian judgment separately in each jurisdiction where assets targeted for recovery are located.
International legal assistance and obtaining information abroad
During the recovery process, it may become necessary to obtain documents or other information abroad that the creditor cannot access independently.
The availability of international legal assistance depends on the nature of the proceedings, the international agreements applicable between the states concerned and their domestic procedural laws.
In civil and commercial matters, the available mechanisms may include service of documents, taking of evidence and other procedural steps involving foreign competent authorities.
Broader mechanisms of international legal assistance are also available in criminal proceedings. However, the mere existence of a debt or an unenforced court judgment is not in itself sufficient grounds for using criminal proceedings solely to locate bank accounts or other assets.
If the debtor’s conduct independently contains elements of a criminal offence, including intentional non-compliance with a court judgment or obstruction of its enforcement, the issue of criminal liability may be assessed separately on the basis of the specific circumstances.
Within properly initiated criminal proceedings, competent authorities may, where the statutory requirements are met, use international legal assistance mechanisms to conduct procedural actions and obtain evidence in another country.
Criminal proceedings should not, however, replace the civil and enforcement mechanisms available for debt recovery.
What should be checked in Ukraine before commencing foreign enforcement
In addition to tracing assets abroad, the creditor should determine what assets the debtor owned in Ukraine when the debt arose and after the dispute began.
If, before moving abroad or after becoming obliged to repay the debt, the debtor transferred real estate, vehicles, corporate rights or other valuable property, the relevant transactions should be examined.
Particular attention should be paid to transactions involving related parties or close relatives, transfers without consideration, sales at an obviously non-market price and other transactions that effectively left the debtor without sufficient assets to meet their obligations.
If a transaction was entered into to the detriment of the creditor and was intended to prevent enforcement against the debtor’s property, it may, where the relevant legal grounds exist, be challenged as a fraudulent transaction.
In such circumstances, the purpose of court proceedings is to restore the creditor’s ability to satisfy the claim from property that was removed from the debtor’s asset pool.
More information on this mechanism is available in our article on challenging fraudulent agreements as a debt collection tool.
Before commencing costly recognition proceedings simultaneously in several foreign jurisdictions, it may therefore be worthwhile to assess whether assets previously held in Ukraine can be brought back within reach of the creditor.
Conclusion
A debtor’s move abroad does not terminate their obligations and does not prevent a creditor from seeking enforcement of a Ukrainian court judgment.
The practical strategy depends on where the debtor lives, in which countries their assets are located and which legal mechanism allows the Ukrainian judgment to be recognised and enforced in the relevant jurisdiction.
Where assets are located in several countries, it is generally advisable first to identify the jurisdiction containing assets that can realistically be reached through enforcement and to compare their value with the cost and complexity of the local procedure.
Foreign bank and payment accounts, interests in companies, corporate rights, dividends and other sources of income should also be considered when assessing the debtor’s asset position.
At the same time, cross-border enforcement does not exclude parallel work with assets located in Ukraine. If the debtor transferred property in order to prevent the creditor from satisfying its claim, analysing and challenging such transactions may provide an additional route to recovery.
If debt recovery requires action against a debtor or their assets abroad, Grandliga can coordinate international debt collection, including identifying the appropriate jurisdiction, assessing the recognition and enforcement of a Ukrainian court judgment, organising asset tracing and, where necessary, involving local lawyers in the relevant country.
