Asset investigation before filing suit: how to know whether a €30,000 lawsuit is worth pursuing
There is a scene that lawyers know all too well.
The case is won. The judgment is favourable. The conviction becomes final. Enforcement begins.
And then comes the question nobody asked at the outset: where are the assets?
Sometimes the answer is worse: are there any assets at all?
The client has invested years, legal fees, and tens of thousands of euros to obtain a magnificent enforceable title against a person or company for which they then cannot find sufficient assets to collect on.
The lawsuit was won. The money was not.
Pre-litigation asset investigation exists to reverse that order.
Winning and collecting are two different problems
In a financial claim there are two analyses.
The first is legal: are we right? is there a debt? is there a breach? can we prove it?
The second is financial: if we win, what are the chances of actually collecting?
A judgment against a defendant does not create assets.
If the defendant has no attachable assets, if the company is an empty shell, or if its real economic activity is minimal, procedural success can end up being financially useless.
That does not necessarily mean one should not sue. It means the client should decide with full information.
The economic sphere is the investigator's natural territory
Article 48.1.a) of Law 5/2014 assigns private investigators the necessary inquiries to obtain and provide information and evidence, on behalf of entitled third parties, about facts or conduct relating, among other areas, to the economic, commercial, and financial spheres.
Naturally, the existence of a debt does not grant an unlimited right to know all of another person's assets.
It remains necessary to demonstrate legitimate interest, necessity, and proportionality, and to respect the limits on access to restricted information.
Within that framework, an investigator can offer something that an automated report does not provide: investigation.
A commercial report is not an asset investigation
A database compiles information.
An investigation tries to interpret an economic reality.
There may be successive companies, changes of director, recent transfers, observable business activity, real estate, encumbrances, shareholdings, powers of attorney, and relationships that only acquire meaning once connected chronologically.
The work does not consist of accumulating names and properties.
It consists of building a map that is economically intelligible for the lawyer.
First question: is there identifiable wealth?
The investigation can lawfully identify real estate and registrable rights where applicable, encumbrances, corporate links, business activity, directors, proxies, and other assets or economic indicators accessible under the law.
But a serious investigator should never promise: "this is the entirety of their assets."
There is information — especially banking or tax information — that a private investigator cannot access merely because they have been hired by a creditor.
What they can do is identify and connect what can lawfully be ascertained.
Second question: who is behind the activity?
Economic activities can be carried out through companies, family groups, directors, proxies, or related businesses.
The investigator must not presume actual ownership simply from proximity.
They can document objective facts: who manages, who represents, who attends the premises, who negotiates, which companies share an address, when they were incorporated, what changes have occurred, and what activity is actually carried out.
It will then be up to the lawyer to determine the legal consequences.
Third question: what has happened over time?
A financial snapshot is useful. A moving picture is usually better.
When was a property transferred? When did a company cease operating? When did another one appear? When did the director change? Before or after the obligation arose? Before or after the demand for payment?
Temporal coincidence does not prove fraud on its own, but it can provide valuable information for deciding which actions to analyse or what documentation to request.
In asset investigation, the date can be as important as the asset.
Fourth question: is there real economic activity?
This is where private investigation offers one of its greatest points of differentiation.
Public registries explain part of reality. Observation explains another part.
A company may exist on paper in the registry, but is it operating? does it receive customers? who actually runs it? who comes and goes? is a given property really used for an economic activity?
STS 851/2021 offers an example: a private investigation made it possible to document relevant economic activity by a person who claimed to lack resources to meet obligations arising from a divorce.
When the economic reality does not appear in full in the documents, an investigator can help document the missing facts.
The final question: is it worth suing?
With the map laid out, different scenarios may emerge.
Identifiable assets exist: the claim has a reasonable prospect of enforcement.
There is activity but limited direct assets: it may be necessary to look further, from a legal standpoint, into relationships or transactions.
There are relevant asset transfers: the lawyer can examine possible actions and, where appropriate, interim measures.
No sufficient assets or relevant activity appear: that too is a result. Perhaps the best service is to prevent the client from investing another 30,000 euros to obtain a title whose recovery is highly uncertain.
Knowing when not to sue is also a win.
Investigation and interim measures
An investigator's report does not, by itself, grant an interim measure.
The court will still have to examine the relevant legal requirements.
But knowing the asset situation beforehand can help the lawyer frame a more specific request: which measure to seek, over which asset, what facts justify the risk, and what changes have taken place.
Before is better than after
Before filing suit, the investigation makes it possible to decide whether to litigate, against whom, with what strategy, and what additional information to obtain.
During the proceedings, it makes it possible to keep the picture up to date.
After judgment, it remains useful, but the problem already exists and the debtor has had time to prepare.
That is why we suggest law firms incorporate a recoverability analysis at the outset of financially significant matters.
A due diligence for the litigation
Nobody buys a company without reviewing its assets.
Why invest tens of thousands of euros in proceedings without studying the potential capacity for recovery?
Suing is also a financial decision.
A prior asset investigation can be understood as a recoverability due diligence for the litigation.
First: can we win?
Then: if we win, what are the chances of collecting?
What an investigator cannot do
They cannot unlawfully access bank accounts, restricted tax information, other people's computer systems, passwords, private communications, or restricted databases without legal authorisation.
Professional investigation is built on lawful sources, registries, documentation accessible under the law, corporate research, open sources, observation when pertinent, cross-checking, chronology, and analysis.
The difference between a database and an investigation lies in three verbs: cross-check, connect, explain.
And then the court comes in
Once an enforceable title exists, the LEC gives the court more powerful tools. Article 589 provides for a formal demand on the party subject to enforcement to disclose their assets and rights, and Article 590 governs judicial investigation of assets, allowing the court to approach entities, bodies, and registries under the terms set out by law.
Private investigation and judicial inquiry do not compete. They complement each other.
The investigator can arrive earlier, identify leads, and provide context. The court then has coercive powers that a private investigator cannot access.
Conclusion
Pre-litigation asset investigation does not guarantee payment, nor does it replace the court.
It does something perhaps more important: it allows the client to decide before spending.
It identifies assets and activity that are lawfully accessible, reconstructs economic relationships, orders chronologies, and reduces uncertainty.
A favourable judgment is a magnificent legal outcome. But when the goal is to collect, being able to enforce what was won matters just as much as winning it.
At Método 3 we have been investigating the reality behind the paperwork since 1985.
Truth has a method.