When the Bailiff Comes Knocking at the Vault
“Money is the sinews of war,” Cicero wrote two millennia ago. In the theatre of debt enforcement, the debtor’s bank account serves precisely this purpose: seizing it paralyzes the debtor’s capacity to function, severing access to the means of daily existence and the conduct of business. For the creditor, it is often the most effective path to recovering what is owed. For the debtor, it is the cruelest blow.
The Mechanics of Seizure: Three Notices, One Outcome
The seizure of a bank account is an exercise in synchronized precision. The bailiff executes three actions in near-simultaneous concert.
First, a notice to the bank: the bailiff transmits information regarding the seizure of the debtor’s monetary claim, up to the amount of the enforced debt plus costs. The bank receives an injunction against making any withdrawals without the bailiff’s consent.
Second, a notice to the debtor: the bailiff serves the debtor with a copy of the notice sent to the bank. From this moment forward, the debtor knows their account has been frozen.
Third, a notice to the creditor: the bailiff informs the creditor that the seizure has been executed.
“Surprise is the soul of war,” Frederick the Great was fond of saying. The seizure of a bank account embodies this principle with uncomfortable fidelity: the debtor often learns of the freeze only when attempting to withdraw cash from an ATM and finding the card rejected.
The Moment of Seizure: The Constitutive Significance of Service
The seizure of a bank account takes effect at the moment the bank receives the notice. This is the constitutive moment—from this instant onward, the bank is prohibited from making withdrawals, and the funds in the account are frozen up to the amount of the seized claim.
The Supreme Court has emphasized this point repeatedly: service of notice upon the bank is decisive. Neither the notice to the debtor nor the notice to the creditor affects the validity of the seizure. The debtor may remain entirely unaware that their money has already been locked away.
“In war, what matters is not what you see, but what you do not see”—a principle understood by every competent commander. A debtor who fails to monitor their accounts may go days without realizing their funds have become inaccessible.
No Requirement to Specify the Account Number
The bailiff need not know the debtor’s bank account number. The seizure notice is effective even without specifying a particular account—in such cases, the seizure encompasses all accounts held by the debtor at the bank in question.
This is a formidable instrument. The bailiff dispatches notices to several—sometimes a dozen or more—banks, without knowing where the debtor keeps their money. The bank that maintains the debtor’s account must freeze the funds. The bank that maintains no such account simply informs the bailiff of this fact.
“The dispersion of the enemy’s forces is half the victory,” wrote Antoine-Henri Jomini. By sending notices to multiple banks simultaneously, the bailiff achieves precisely this: the debtor cannot know which account will be seized first, and has no time to transfer funds elsewhere.
The Problem of Identification: Common Names
What happens when a bank maintains accounts for several individuals sharing the same name? The Warsaw Court of Appeals addressed this question unequivocally: the bank must freeze funds in all accounts belonging to persons whose identifying information matches the debtor’s, up to the amount of the seized claim.
But here is the crucial caveat: the freeze is merely the first stage. The bank is not required to immediately transfer funds to the bailiff—it may first attempt to identify the correct debtor. If, however, the bank permits a withdrawal from the account during this period, it bears liability for damages to the creditor.
A person whose account has been frozen in error—because they share identifying information with the debtor—is not the debtor; they are a third party. They are entitled to bring an action for release of the account from enforcement under Article 841 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Amount Exempt from Seizure
Not all funds in an account are subject to seizure. The legislature protects the debtor’s existential minimum.
Seventy-five percent of the minimum wage—this is the amount exempt from seizure in a bank account for each calendar month. In 2025, the minimum wage in Poland stands at 4,666 złoty gross, placing the exempt amount at approximately 3,500 złoty per month.
But this protection has its limits. The exempt amount does not shield the debtor from enforcement of maintenance obligations—alimony and child support take precedence over the debtor’s own needs.
“An army marches on its stomach,” Napoleon observed. The legislature understands that a debtor stripped of all means of subsistence will be unable to function—and consequently, unable to earn money and repay debts. The exempt amount represents pragmatism, not humanitarianism.
The Bank’s Obligations: Seven Days to Respond
A bank that has received a seizure notice has seven days to either transfer the seized amount to the bailiff or notify the bailiff of any obstacle to the transfer.
Such obstacles may include: insufficient funds in the account; a prior seizure on behalf of another creditor; concurrent judicial and administrative enforcement proceedings; termination of the banking relationship; or the bank’s set-off of its own claim against the debtor.
What if the bank misses the deadline? A failure to meet the timeline does not automatically trigger sanctions against the bank in the enforcement proceedings themselves. But employees responsible for the delay may be subject to fines, and if the creditor has suffered damages, the bank bears liability.
“Discipline is the soul of an army,” George Washington wrote. The seven-day deadline serves precisely to discipline banks and streamline enforcement.
Concurrent Enforcement: When Creditors Multiply
Matters grow complicated when multiple creditors simultaneously direct enforcement against the same bank account.
When funds suffice for all, the bank transfers the appropriate amounts to the respective bailiffs in portions due to their creditors. Simple arithmetic.
When funds do not suffice, the bank suspends all withdrawals and notifies all bailiffs. The cases are consolidated under a single bailiff, who prepares a distribution plan and allocates funds proportionally among the creditors.
Maintenance obligations and annuities occupy a privileged position—enforcement of these claims takes priority. And when judicial and administrative enforcement proceedings converge, it is the court bailiff—not the tax authority—who conducts both proceedings jointly.
Accounts Excluded from Enforcement
Not every account may be seized.
Fiduciary accounts: funds deposited therein belong to the principal, not the account holder. Enforcement against the holder of a fiduciary account cannot reach these funds.
Accounts with registered savings passbooks: enforcement against such accounts is governed by separate provisions under Article 893¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Funds exempt from enforcement by operation of law: but note well—it falls to the debtor to demonstrate in the enforcement proceedings that specific funds are protected. The bank does not make this assessment independently and cannot refuse to freeze funds by invoking their character.
The Debtor’s Defense: Available Options
A debtor whose account has been seized is not without recourse.
A complaint against the bailiff’s actions—if the seizure was executed in violation of regulations (for example, if the exempt amount was seized, or if the account of a non-debtor was frozen).
An opposition action—if the debtor contests the existence, amount, or enforceability of the debt (for example, if the debt has been repaid, has become time-barred, or the enforcement title is defective).
A motion to limit enforcement—if the scope of seizure is excessive relative to the amount of the debt.
A motion to suspend enforcement proceedings—in special circumstances, such as when proceedings to strip the enforcement title of its enforceability are pending.
“There are no hopeless situations—there are only people who have grown hopeless about them,” Clare Boothe Luce is said to have remarked. Even with a frozen bank account, the debtor possesses legal instruments of defense. The question is whether the grounds exist to deploy them.
The Bank’s Liability
A bank that violates the withdrawal prohibition—by permitting the debtor to access funds in a seized account—bears liability to the creditor for damages caused. This is compensatory liability: the creditor may recover from the bank the amount that could not be enforced due to the bank’s fault.
The Supreme Court has confirmed: even when a bank maintains accounts for several individuals sharing the same name, the attempt to identify the correct debtor does not suspend the effects of seizure, nor does it relieve the bank of liability for permitting a withdrawal.
“Who bears the risk reaps the profits—but also bears the losses.” This is a fundamental principle of commerce, one that banks understand intimately. The risk of misidentification falls upon the bank, not the creditor.
Practical Guidance for Creditors
You need not know the debtor’s bank. The bailiff will determine this ex officio or through inquiries to financial institutions.
You need not know the account number. It suffices to identify the bank, and the seizure will encompass all of the debtor’s accounts held there.
Account seizure is often the opening move. Funds in a bank account are the most liquid assets and the easiest to move. The sooner the bailiff seizes the account, the greater the likelihood of satisfaction.
Monitor the proceedings. The bailiff will inform you of the seizure, but you should inquire about results. The absence of funds in an account signals that other assets must be pursued.
The seizure of a bank account is a formidable enforcement instrument—swift, effective, and painful for the debtor. For the creditor, it is often the key to recovering what is owed. For the debtor, it is the signal that the time for negotiation has ended.
Skarbiec Law Firm — debt enforcement with precision and effectiveness.