The enforcement of judgments by creditors against their debtors is frequently a sensitive and challenging stage in legal proceedings. This complexity largely stems from the fact that creditors do not always have full knowledge of their debtor’s assets, making it difficult to identify and target resources for enforcement. As a result, efficiently securing the recovery of outstanding amounts often hinges on the availability of accurate and up-to-date information regarding the debtor’s financial holdings.
In this regard, the Central Point of Contact for accounts and financial contracts (CPC), spearheaded by the National Bank of Belgium, has become an important though often overlooked force in streamlining the enforcement of claims.
Launched in 2011 to crack down on fraud, the CPC centralises information on all Belgian accounts and financial contracts, foreign accounts held by natural persons required to file a personal income tax return in Belgium, as well as financial transactions involving cash. Further, since January 2022, financial institutions operating in Belgium have been required to submit the following information to the CPC : bank and payment account balances, aggregate amounts held under investment contracts and related contracts and aggregate amounts held under life insurance contracts, all of which as at 30/06 and 31/12.
While the initial purpose of the CPC was to combat fraud, its use has now expanded to other objectives, in particular facilitating the enforcement of claims.
The way in which the CPC can be used to enforce your claim depends on whether you hold an enforceable judgment (option 1) or not (option 2).
Option 1: you have obtained an enforceable judgment
Since March 2025, bailiffs are permitted to consult the Central Point of Contact (CPC) before starting a bank account garnishment, as long as there is an enforceable judgment (under article 1539bis of the Judicial Code). Previously, garnishment orders had to be sent to one or several Belgian financial institutions without being sure whether they had an account open under the name of the debtor, often entailing useless costs. Nowadays, bailiffs can verify in advance: (1) where the debtor holds funds and (2) whether those funds are sufficient to justify garnishment. This makes the process more efficient and results in considerable cost savings. Notably, foreign bank accounts held and declared by private individuals are also revealed in the CPC search results.
However, it is important to remember that information on bank and payment account balances is only updated twice a year, on June 30 and December 31. Therefore, the data accessed by the bailiff may not always accurately reflect the debtor’s current financial position at the time of the inquiry.
Option 2: you do not have an enforceable judgment
For conservatory garnishments, bailiffs cannot automatically access the Central Point of Contact (CPC). The creditor must first apply to the Enforcement judge, which may authorise the bailiff to consult the CPC through the National Chamber of bailiffs, provided that the standard requirements for a conservatory garnishment are met (Article 1447 of the Judicial Code). This procedure is originally based on a regulation passed in 2014 at EU level, which provides for a similar procedure to trace accounts open in other Member States.
Previously, creditors were required to specify the identity of the third party (such as the bank) subject to conservatory garnishment when filing their application to the Enforcement Judge. However, this is no longer always necessary, especially if the application also aims to uncover the debtor’s bank account numbers (Article 1447 of the Judicial Code).
Law of 18 December 2025 – Including crypto-assets in the CPC
On 18 December 2025, the Belgian legislator adopted a law expanding the scope of the CPC to include cryptocurrency accounts. From now on, the balances of these accounts must also be communicated to the CPC twice a year, as at 30/06 and 31/12.
Although this law was primarily enacted to combat money laundering, one can wonder whether it will be used in the future to allow seizing cryptocurrency accounts in the context of a garnishment. Subject to legal debate, the use of the term “account” in Article 1539bis of the Judicial Code, applicable when the creditor has an enforceable judgment, appears broad enough to empower bailiffs to seek information about cryptocurrency accounts via the CPC. However, this is more complex for conservatory garnishments, as Article 1447 of the Judicial Code specifically refers more strictly to a “bank account“. In any event, identifying the crypto account of a debtor is only the first step on the difficult road leading to enforcement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while tracing and identifying assets on which to enforce a judgment remains a challenging and often complex process, the existence of the CPC represents a valuable tool for creditors. By providing a centralised mechanism to access information on a debtor’s financial holdings – including, now, both traditional bank accounts and potentially crypto-assets – the CPC greatly increases the likelihood that a judgment will not simply remain unenforced, but may actually be translated into effective recovery.
Should you have any questions or require assistance, feel free to reach out to the authors of this article.
***
This newsletter does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Please consult with a legal counsel before taking any action based on the information provided.