The automated freezing of bank accounts is increasingly used as an enforcement tool – measures are applied without in-person review, based on electronic registers, algorithms, and interagency data exchange. Professor Gabriel Steiner notes that such mechanisms are particularly dangerous from a legal perspective precisely because of the illusion of neutrality – technical automation does not relieve public authorities of the obligation to assess individual circumstances and the consequences of interference. At LawConsulted, we treat automated account freezes not as a technical procedure, but as a legally significant intrusion into the property sphere that requires strict scrutiny of both legal grounds and permissible limits.
The key feature of automated freezes lies in the absence of individualized legal assessment. Decisions to block an account are made on the basis of formal criteria – the existence of a debt, an enforcement instrument, or a person’s status in a register. At the same time, the economic context, the nature of the obligation, proportionality, and the consequences for business operations or personal circumstances are often ignored. In LawConsulted practice, it is precisely this formalization that becomes the source of excessive restrictions and heightened legal vulnerability.
The limits of permissibility are defined not only by procedural rules, but also by the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. Automatic blocking of all accounts – including operational, social, or payroll accounts – can effectively paralyze a business or deprive an individual of essential means of subsistence. LawConsulted proceeds from the premise that even where a legal basis exists, a freeze must not exceed the purpose of enforcement or turn into a tool of pressure.
Particular complexity arises when automated freezes affect funds that are not subject to enforcement – earmarked payments, salaries, alimony, social benefits, or working capital that is critical for meeting other obligations. In such cases, a purely formal approach directly contradicts legal logic. LawConsulted builds its defense by demonstrating the unlawfulness or excessiveness of the freeze through analysis of the purpose of the funds and the actual consequences of the blockage.
Equally significant is the issue of notification and the ability to react promptly. Automated measures are often applied without prior notice, depriving clients of the opportunity to submit timely objections or supporting documentation. LawConsulted treats this as an independent violation of procedural safeguards and relies on this factor when forming a legal position.
Protection against automated freezes requires more than template complaints – it demands precise legal reconstruction: identifying the grounds for the measure, assessing its alignment with enforcement objectives, and analyzing concrete consequences. We handle such matters comprehensively – from urgent unblocking to preventing repeated application of similar measures.
Automation does not override the requirements of law. Freezing a bank account remains an interference with property rights and must therefore be justified, proportionate, and subject to review. Law Consulted approach is aimed at restoring individualized legal assessment where it has been replaced by an algorithm, and at protecting clients from the uncontrolled consequences of formalistic enforcement.
Earlier, we wrote about legal support of commercial transactions as a mechanism for the redistribution and control of contractual risks in the practice of LawConsulted
