Attaching Accounts Receivable in Japan｜Method, Advantages and Drawbacks

You hold a judgment against a Japanese company and it still does not pay. The most effective next step is rarely the forced sale of real property; more often it is execution against the accounts receivable that the debtor itself holds against its own customers. Japanese law calls this execution against claims. What follows explains, under Japanese law, what may be attached, how the procedure runs, and where its advantages and its costs lie.

Contents

What is attached, and how it must be identified
How the procedure runs
The advantages
The drawbacks
Claims exempt from attachment
How this differs from provisional attachment
In closing
How to contact us

What is attached, and how it must be identified

What is seized is not cash in the debtor’s hands but a monetary claim the debtor holds against a third party. That third party is known in the procedure as the third-party obligor (daisan-saimusha). Where the claim is an account receivable, the creditor attaches the debtor’s claim for the price of goods against its customer, and thereafter collects from that customer directly.

The application must name the third-party obligor and identify the claim; the court will not investigate this for you. Useful sources are the remitters shown in past payment records, the counterparties named in master trading agreements and purchase orders, and the principal customers listed on the debtor’s own website. A Japanese lawyer may in addition make a bar association inquiry under article 23-2 of the Attorney Act of Japan. The property disclosure procedure, in which the court orders the debtor to appear and state its assets, is also available; so is the procedure for obtaining information from third parties, though the latter reaches only deposits, book-entry securities, real property and wages, and does not yield the identity of the debtor’s trade customers.

How the procedure runs

Obtain an enforceable title — a judgment, a settlement record, a demand for payment, or a notarial deed containing the debtor’s statement submitting to compulsory execution.
Apply for an attachment order against the claim, to the District Court for the debtor’s address. The filing fee is 4,000 yen, with postal charges paid in advance.
The order issues without the debtor being heard and is served first on the third-party obligor and then on the debtor. From service on the third-party obligor, that party may no longer pay the debtor.
Collection — one week after the attachment order is served on the debtor, the creditor may collect directly from the third-party obligor. For wages and similar protected claims the period is four weeks.
Notice requiring a statement — if applied for at the same time, the court clerk requires the third-party obligor to state, within two weeks of service, whether the claim exists, its amount, and whether it is disputed. This is the information that tells you whether the attachment has struck anything.

The advantages

It is quicker than a forced sale. Execution against real property commonly takes about a year from application to distribution, whereas here collection may begin one week after service on the debtor, and money can reach the creditor within weeks.

It is inexpensive. The filing fee of 4,000 yen and postal charges usually come to under 10,000 yen in all, against advance costs of several hundred thousand yen for a forced sale of real property.

It exerts practical pressure. Once the order is served on the debtor’s customer, the debtor’s cash flow and its standing with that customer are immediately affected, and in practice this often produces payment in full or a negotiated instalment settlement.

The drawbacks

The attachment may strike nothing. If trading with that customer has already ended, or nothing was supplied in the relevant period, there is no claim to seize and the costs already incurred are not recovered.

It damages the debtor’s credit. A customer who learns that its supplier is under execution will often stop dealing with it, which can make the debtor’s business unsustainable and leave every creditor worse off. Where trading with the debtor continues, weigh the scope for negotiation first.

A dispute forces a further action. If the third-party obligor denies the claim, or asserts a set-off or a prior assignment, the creditor must bring a collection action (toritate-sosho), and the matter becomes a long one.

Claims exempt from attachment

Wages, bonuses and retirement allowances are in principle protected as to three-quarters of the sum payable, subject to a ceiling fixed by cabinet order above which the excess may be attached; where the claim enforced is one for maintenance, the protected proportion falls to one half. The court may also vary the scope of the exemption on application. Trade receivables between businesses are not exempt, but if the receivable has already been assigned or given as security by way of transfer, little may remain to collect.

How this differs from provisional attachment

Provisional attachment (kari-sashiosae) is a provisional remedy that freezes the debtor’s assets before any enforceable title exists: the creditor cannot collect, and a security bond must be deposited with the Legal Affairs Bureau. The attachment described above presupposes an enforceable title and permits actual collection. Where the debtor is close to collapse and a judgment cannot be awaited, the receivables should first be placed under provisional attachment, which converts into full execution once judgment is obtained.

In closing

Success here depends on naming the right third-party obligor and on timing: once the trading relationship ends, the claim you meant to seize no longer exists. Pursue the enforceable title and the investigation of the debtor’s customers in parallel, while the debtor’s position still holds. Instructions, investigation and the application itself can all be handled from abroad by email and video conference, and we are equally glad to work through the creditor’s own counsel.

How to contact us

Telephone 03-6435-8418 within Japan, or +81-3-6435-8418 from overseas. Lines are open from 08:00 to 24:00 Japan time, including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Enquiries are also received at any hour through the form on this site.

M&A Partners Law Office LPC　Katsuhiro Tsuchiya, Representative Attorney-at-Law (Tokyo Bar Association, Registration No. 26775)　17F Mori Trust Shiroyama Trust Tower, 4-3-1 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan

This article is a general explanation based on the laws and practice of Japan as at August 2026 (Reiwa 8). The outcome of any particular matter depends on its own facts, and no specific result is guaranteed.

Contents