Behind the Scenes of Japanese Enforcement: Understanding the Deposit Officer's Crucial "Notification of Circumstances"

When a third-party obligor in Japan—such as a company owing a debt, or an employer owing wages—is served with a seizure order for that obligation, they often make an "enforcement deposit" (shikkō kyotaku) with a Legal Affairs Bureau. This deposit effectively transfers the funds into the custody of the legal system. Following this, the third-party obligor must file a "Notification of Circumstances" (jijō todoke 事情届) with the execution court (Civil Execution Act Article 156, Paragraph 3). This notification is pivotal as it formally informs the court of the deposit, enabling the court to initiate procedures for distributing the funds to the entitled seizing creditor(s).

But what happens in a less common, more intricate scenario: when the very "right to claim a payout of previously deposited funds" (kyōtakukin haraidashi seikyūken 供託金払渡請求権) is itself seized by a creditor of the person entitled to that payout? In this situation, the State of Japan, represented by the Deposit Officer (kyōtakukan 供託官) at the Legal Affairs Bureau holding the original deposit, effectively becomes the third-party obligor. The question then arises: under what circumstances does the Deposit Officer, in this unique capacity, file a jijō todoke with the execution court concerning the seizure of this payout right? This article explores this specific facet of Japanese enforcement procedure.

The Deposit Officer as a Third-Party Obligor

Various types of funds can be held at a Japanese deposit office (Legal Affairs Bureau). For example:

• A defendant in a lawsuit might deposit security money (a "judicial security deposit").
• A debtor might deposit funds to fulfill an obligation if the creditor refuses acceptance (a "performance deposit").
• A third-party obligor might deposit funds that were subject to a provisional seizure (creating "deemed" provisional seizure release money).

The person entitled to eventually receive these deposited funds (the depositor claiming a refund, or the beneficiary claiming payment) has a "right to claim payout of deposited funds." This right is an asset and can itself be seized by their creditors. When such a seizure order is served on the Legal Affairs Bureau holding the original deposit, the Deposit Officer (acting for the State) is now in the position of a third-party obligor with respect to this payout right.

General Principles Guiding the Deposit Officer's Jijō Todoke

The decision by a Deposit Officer to file a jijō todoke when a payout right is seized is guided by official circulars from the Ministry of Justice, primarily a circular from September 6, 1980 (Shōwa 55.9.6 Minji IV No. 5333), concerning civil execution.

1. No Competing Seizures on the Payout Right:
   If only a single seizure order is served on the Deposit Officer for a specific right to claim payout, and there are no other competing seizure orders or formal demands for distribution (haitō yōkyū) against that particular payout right, the Deposit Officer is generally not required to file a jijō todoke with the execution court. In this straightforward case, the Deposit Officer can typically process a payout directly to the single seizing creditor once that creditor makes a valid collection claim based on their seizure order.
2. Competing Seizures or Demand for Distribution on the Payout Right:
   Conversely, if multiple seizure orders (including provisional seizure orders that have transitioned to full execution seizures) are served on the Deposit Officer, all targeting the same payout right and creating a "competition of seizures," OR if a formal demand for distribution concerning that payout right is received, then the Deposit Officer must file a jijō todoke with the execution court that issued the relevant seizure order(s).
3. Crucial Condition: The Payout Right Must Be "Payable":
   This duty to file a jijō todoke in situations of competing claims only crystallizes when the underlying payout right itself has become definitively "payable" or "demandable" (haraidashi seikyū ni ōzuru koto ga dekiru toki). If the conditions for paying out the original deposit have not yet been met, the payout right is not yet considered fully actionable, and the Deposit Officer would typically not file a jijō todoke regarding seizures on it, even if those seizures are competing.

Determining When a Right to Payout Becomes "Payable"

The point at which a right to claim payout of deposited funds becomes "payable" varies depending on the nature of the original deposit:

• Judicial Security Deposits (裁判上の担保供託 - Saibanjō no Tanpo Kyōtaku):
  These are often made as security in litigation (e.g., security for court costs, security to avoid provisional execution). The depositor's right to a refund (torimodoshi seikyūken) of such a deposit becomes payable when the underlying reason for the security has ceased to exist. This typically occurs when:
  • The litigation has concluded in favor of the depositor.
  • A court issues an order canceling the security requirement (e.g., a "security cancellation decision" - tanpo torikeshi kettei), and this order becomes final and conclusive.
    The Deposit Officer usually becomes aware that the refund is payable when the depositor submits a formal refund claim accompanied by the necessary court-issued certifications (such as a Certificate of Final Judgment or a Certificate of Security Cancellation).
• Performance Deposits (弁済供託 - Bensai Kyōtaku):
  These are made by a debtor to fulfill an obligation, for instance, when a creditor refuses to accept payment.
  • The depositee's (original creditor's) right to receive payment (kanpu seikyūken) from the deposit becomes payable when the depositee formally accepts the deposit, or when a court judgment declaring the deposit valid and effective becomes final and conclusive.
  • The depositor's (original debtor's) right to a refund of the performance deposit (e.g., if the depositee ultimately does not accept it and certain conditions are met) becomes payable when the depositor makes a refund claim based on the depositee's non-acceptance, and the legal conditions for such a refund are fulfilled.
  • "Floating Legal Relationship" (fudōteki kenri kankei 不動的権利関係): Until the depositee accepts a performance deposit or a court finalizes its validity, the entitlement to the funds is considered to be in a "floating" or unsettled state. If competing seizures exist against a potential payout right (either to the depositee or depositor), the Deposit Officer will generally file a jijō todoke only after this floating state is resolved and the specific right to payout crystallizes for one party or the other.

Specific Scenarios and the Deposit Officer's Jijō Todoke

Let's examine how these principles apply in more concrete situations where the Deposit Officer acts as the third-party obligor:

1. Seizure of a Refund Claim for a Judicial Security Deposit:
   If competing seizure orders target the depositor's right to a refund of a judicial security deposit, the Deposit Officer will file the jijō todoke with the execution court only when that refund claim actually becomes payable (e.g., when a security cancellation decision from the court becomes final and conclusive, and this is evidenced to the Deposit Officer, typically through a refund application by the depositor).
2. Seizure of a Payment/Refund Claim for a Performance Deposit:
   If competing seizure orders target the depositee's right to receive payment (once this right has become fixed, for example, by the depositee's formal acceptance of the deposit) or the depositor's right to a refund (once this right has become fixed due to non-acceptance), the Deposit Officer will file a jijō todoke.
   A notable situation arises if a depositee, whose right to payment is already subject to competing seizure orders, attempts to claim the funds directly from the Deposit Officer. In such a case, the Deposit Officer would typically file the jijō todoke (as the right is payable and seizures are competing) and then formally reject the depositee's direct claim. This action effectively channels the matter to the execution court, which will then manage the distribution of the funds among the competing seizing creditors according to their legal priorities.
3. Provisional Seizure Release Money (仮差押解放金 - Karisashiosae Kaihōkin):
   This is money deposited by a debtor specifically to obtain a stay or cancellation of a provisional seizure (kari-sashiosae) that has been levied against their assets (Civil Provisional Remedies Act Article 22). The debtor (who made this deposit) has a right to a refund of this release money if, for example, the provisional seizure is ultimately revoked or the main lawsuit is won by the debtor. This refund right can itself be seized by other creditors of that debtor.
   • If this refund right is targeted by multiple execution seizures that compete, or by the original provisional seizing creditor who, after obtaining a final judgment, transitions their provisional seizure into a full execution seizure on this refund right (and this execution seizure competes with others), the Deposit Officer is obligated to file a jijō todoke.
   • However, if the refund right is only targeted by other creditors' provisional seizures (which are not yet full execution seizures), a jijō todoke is not required at that stage.
   • A key exception: If the original provisional seizing creditor successfully transitions their claim into a full execution seizure against the refund right, AND there is no other competition from other execution seizures against that same refund right, the Deposit Officer does not need to file a jijō todoke. The seizing creditor can, after a statutory one-week waiting period from the service of their execution order on the debtor/depositor, make a direct collection claim to the Deposit Officer for payout of the release money.
4. "Deemed" Provisional Seizure Release Money ("みなし解放金" - Minashi Kaihōkin):
   This distinct situation arises under Article 50, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act. If a third-party obligor (e.g., a bank whose customer's account has been provisionally seized) makes a deposit of the amount of the provisionally seized debt, a portion of this third-party deposit is "deemed" to be provisional seizure release money. The original debtor (the bank's customer, not the bank that made the deposit) acquires a right to claim payment (kanpu seikyūken) of this "deemed" release money portion. This payment claim can, in turn, be seized by the original debtor's creditors.
   • If this payment claim for "deemed" release money is targeted by competing execution seizures from other creditors, the Deposit Officer files a jijō todoke.
   • If only provisional seizures by other creditors target this payment claim, no jijō todoke is needed.
   • Crucial Distinction from True Release Money: When the original provisional seizing creditor transitions to a full execution seizure against this "deemed" release money payment claim (even if there's no other competition):
     • While some general circulars might suggest no jijō todoke is needed by analogy to true release money (where direct collection is possible if no competition), the practice here differs. The "deemed" release money originated from a third-party obligor's deposit made under rules that specifically trigger a "distribution participation cut-off effect" (haitō kanyū shadankō) upon full execution (Civil Provisional Remedies Act Art. 50(5) applying Civil Execution Act Art. 156). This means that the transition to full execution automatically initiates a formal court-managed distribution procedure for these specific funds.
     • Since the execution court would otherwise be unaware of this transition to full execution (which now necessitates its involvement in distribution), Deposit Officers in practice do file a jijō todoke. This filing acts as the necessary trigger for the court.
     • Consequently, payout to the seizing creditor occurs not through their direct collection claim to the Deposit Officer, but via a formal "payment commission" (shiharai itaku) issued by the execution court as part of the distribution process.

The Paramount Importance of Accuracy in the Jijō Todoke

The jijō todoke filed by the Deposit Officer (or any third-party obligor) is not a mere formality. It forms the very basis upon which the execution court identifies the participating creditors and calculates their shares in the distribution proceedings.

• It is imperative that the jijō todoke accurately lists all seizing creditors (including provisional seizing creditors if their claims are relevant to the distribution), along with correct case numbers, claim amounts, and dates of service.
• Failure to include a rightful (provisional) seizing creditor in this notification can lead to that creditor being improperly excluded from the distribution of the deposited funds. This error can have serious consequences. Legal precedent, such as a Tokyo District Court judgment on May 24, 1993 (Heisei 5), has found that such an omission by a Deposit Officer can constitute negligence, potentially leading to state liability for damages if a creditor suffers a loss as a result. Diligent cross-checking of records before filing is essential.

Conclusion: A Specialized Duty in the Enforcement Chain

The role of the Japanese Deposit Officer as a third-party obligor arises in the specific context where rights to claim payout of previously deposited funds become subject to seizure. The decision to file a "Notification of Circumstances" (jijō todoke) is carefully circumscribed, generally hinging on whether seizures on that payout right compete and whether the payout right itself has become definitively payable.

The procedures for handling seizures on provisional seizure release money and "deemed" release money present further layers of complexity, particularly concerning the transition from provisional remedies to full execution and the triggering of court-managed distribution. For all parties involved in such enforcement actions, understanding these "behind the scenes" mechanics, especially the critical function and requirements of the jijō todoke, is essential for navigating the Japanese civil execution process effectively and ensuring that rights are properly asserted and protected. The accuracy of this notification is paramount, as it directly impacts the fairness and legality of the subsequent fund distribution.