The Enforcement Directorate May Request the Debtor’s Account Movements from the Bank Supreme Court Decision

Summary:

Upon the enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor against the debtor through the foreclosure of exchange notes, the complaining third party bank representative stated that in the enforcement proceedings against the debtor; the account movements of the debtor … are requested from the client bank pursuant to Article 73 of the Banking Law. article 367 of the Bankruptcy and Enforcement Code.it is understood that the court, which requested the cancellation of the orders sent by the enforcement directorate under the claim that they are customer secrets within the scope of the article, has decided to accept the complaint.

367 of the IIK. in accordance with the article, every person is obliged to immediately provide all the information that the Execution or Bankruptcy offices will request about the existence of the debtor, and if requested, to deliver the existing to these offices.

73 of the Banking Law. according to the article; “the chairman of the board and the members and staff of the institution, staff members and the chairman of the board of the fund with the fund they learned in the course of their duties banks and their subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and the secrets to this law and authorized clients can’t explain to someone else what happened and according to special laws to benefit themselves or others may not use. The persons and organizations that the institution receives support services from outside, as well as their employees, are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues even after leaving office.”

These restrictions in the law are an obstacle for banks to arbitrarily and arbitrarily disclose secrets belonging to banks and their customers that their members and other officials have learned due to their qualifications, and do not cover forced execution, since a restriction affecting forced execution is not contained in the above-mentioned article.

T.C.
Supreme
12. law office

Main Number:2015/33017
Decision No:2016/10595
K. Date:11.4.2016

COURT : Hanak Executive Law Court
PLAINTIFF : Third Person : Yapı Ve Kredi Bank A.Sh.

Above date and number upon request by the creditor in writing within hours of the court’s decision temyizen this audit work-related files from the scene have been sent to the apartment and rested for the audit report to file a claim held by a judge, and all the documents in the file is read and analysed, after it was thought that the nature of the business discussed:

Upon the enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor against the debtor through the foreclosure of exchange notes, the complaining third party bank representative stated that in the enforcement proceedings against the debtor; the account movements of the debtor … are requested from the client bank pursuant to Article 73 of the Banking Law. article 367 of the Bankruptcy and Enforcement Code.it is understood that the court, which requested the cancellation of the orders sent by the enforcement directorate under the claim that they are customer secrets within the scope of the article, has decided to accept the complaint.

367 of the IIK. in accordance with the article, every person is obliged to immediately provide all the information that the Execution or Bankruptcy offices will request about the existence of the debtor, and if requested, to deliver the existing to these offices.

73 of the Banking Law. according to the article; “the chairman of the board and the members and staff of the institution, staff members and the chairman of the board of the fund with the fund they learned in the course of their duties banks and their subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and the secrets to this law and authorized clients can’t explain to someone else what happened and according to special laws to benefit themselves or others may not use. The persons and organizations that the institution receives support services from outside, as well as their employees, are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues even after leaving office.”

These restrictions in the law are an obstacle for banks to arbitrarily and arbitrarily disclose secrets belonging to banks and their customers that their members and other officials have learned due to their qualifications, and do not cover forced execution, since a restriction affecting forced execution is not contained in the above-mentioned article.

In that case, while the court should have decided to reject the complainant bank’s request, the provision in the direction of acceptance with written justification is inappropriate.

CONCLUSION : With the acceptance of the creditor’s appeal objections, the court’s decision was based on the reasons written above in 366 of the HR Committee and 428 of the HRC. in accordance with its articles, it was unanimously decided on 11.04.2016 to refund the fee received in advance upon request, with the way of correcting the decision being open within 10 days from the notification of the decision.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.