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 real possibility that a defendant will dissipate assets in such a way as to frustrate future enforcement action, the plaintiff may apply to the Indonesian courts for relief. 

The general form of relief from dissipation of assets is a security attachment (locally known as 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 on notice of a conservatory attachment over funds in the defendant’s account, the bank will be prevented from transferring those funds until such security attachment is released by the court.

There is no general ability to appoint a court bailiff or curator over property. Usually assets will be kept with the defendant or, if in the possession of a third party, with such third party. The court may also exercise its discretion to order the assets to 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.