saisir hors les livres de la banque

17:13 Sep 1, 2014 

it is clearly about a "registration" to secure a liability by a lien/encumbrance/charge etc. (the precise nature is unclear and we don;t know which jurisdiction this is from), and not a "seizure" which as Philgoddard suggests, could well mean recording an entry

16:43 Sep 1, 2014 

I think it's something to do with the fact that it's not a "seizure" strictly speaking. They would have to start a legal process and are asserting inn advance their right to pursue this.

I dunno, I'm not quite clear on the distinction between "saisir" as seizure of assets and "saisir" as including some other source of information.

I'm actually more inclined to your interpretation in that sense, but the two dissenting opinions come from very sensible people who I believe have decent experience in this specific area. They are suggesting that it's more about accounting for this other type of asset, and that making this explicit being the fact which makes the (is "seizure" quite the right word) than the seizure itself.

There is clearly (imo) a degree of double entendre in the original text, but I agree that the legal relevance has more to do with accounting for the second source of information than any seizure rights linked to it. It is effectively asserting their right to go for other assets if the account acting as the security to the loan is not sufficient to cover the remaining costs of the loan if it goes into arrears, etc. That's my take ...

05:58 Sep 1, 2014 

I got a disagree on my suggestion and what you say is exactly my response to that.
There is a seizure of funds or something but other than a bank account and it does or could impact negatively on the bank

05:32 Sep 1, 2014 

So, if the bank has to spend money to look for other assets to claim in the case that the initial asset proposed as security against liability, then they will deduct this cost from the account.

I think, if there isn't enough money in the account to cover the liability, they will increase the negative value (amount of accumulated credit) of the account by the amount that the spend seeking equivalent funds.

Say, a loan is secured for $100,000. They say "here's $20,000 in an account, and I promise not to touch it because it's to secure the $100,000 taken out for this other activity. i.e., see? I have money". Then perhaps the loan is still at $60,000 owing when the company declares bankruptcy. Perhaps the bank will have to spend money trying to access other assets.

Probably it's a personal business loan, and the owner is not shielded by limited liability of corporate status, and this is the reason for the setup. The bank is being explicit that the entity is fully responsible for the liability, and not only that, but they are explicitly saying that the entity has to pay for any costs if there is any trouble with this or confusion on the matter. "So don't think there is any questio

14:18 Aug 29, 2014 

as they are still talking of "saisir"

13:11 Aug 29, 2014 

But could this be "write off"?