In a recent decision, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) reaffirmed the understanding that bank deposits in the name of legal entities, which operate for business purposes, are not protected by the impeniability provided for in Article 833, X, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Thus, the STJ reinforced that, in legal cases, unseizability is presumed, and it is up to the creditor to demonstrate bad faith, abuse of rights or fraud in order for the rule to be excepted.
This understanding was established by the collegiate body when it partially granted the debtors’ special appeal and recognized the unseizability of the amounts in the bank accounts of the natural persons being executed, up to the limit of 40 minimum wages, while maintaining the seizure of the amount owned by the company.
Therefore, with regard to the legal entity, the Justice considered that the rule of unseizability does not apply, since:
“The aforementioned rule of unseizability seeks to protect the dignity of the debtor and his family, through the maintenance of a minimum patrimony and the preservation of conditions for the exercise of an integral life, that is, the protection is aimed at natural persons, and cannot be extended indiscriminately to legal persons, even if they keep savings as their only bank account.”
From the above, we can see that the position adopted by the Justices represents a significant move in applying the precepts of our legal system, protecting the dignity of the debtor and his family, while at the same time not tolerating fraudulent practices and guaranteeing the rights of creditors.
We are attentive to new developments in case law and discussions in all areas of the Judiciary, in order to provide adequate and effective advice to our clients.
