Complete justice... from winning the case to achieving the right

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

A person may spend years in the corridors of the courts, spending as much money and time as he spends, until he finally obtains a judicial ruling that is fair to him. But what if he discovered that his opponent transferred his money to a relative, or hid it behind apparently legitimate transactions, and then stood before the enforcement court claiming inability to pay? Here begins another suffering, which may be more severe than the first dispute. Because the right holder is no longer looking for someone to prove his right to him, but rather for someone to return it to him. Justice is not complete when the judge pronounces the ruling, but rather when the right reaches its owner.

Perhaps this distance between the issuance of the ruling and the fulfillment of the right is what gives the imminent entry into force of the new Saudi implementation system its importance. On the twenty-eighth of this October, the system will move from the approval stage to the entry into force, marking the beginning of a new phase in developing implementation tools and enhancing the effectiveness of fulfilling rights. This comes as an extension of the Ministry of Justice’s efforts to develop the justice system and provide the capabilities that make executive rulings and bonds more capable of achieving their purpose, within guarantees that preserve the rights of both the creditor and the debtor. The ruling issued in the name of justice must find its way to implementation, and not remain a fixed right on paper, dependent on the ability of its owner to pursue the debtor’s money.

One of the most notable features worth noting in the new system is the expansion of money tracking tools. When there is evidence that the debtor concealed or transferred his money with the intention of obstructing implementation, it becomes possible to request that it be traced according to specific judicial procedures, and to verify the actions he made, including money that is suspected of being transferred to relatives, agents, or people with whom he has financial transactions. This is not a simple procedural matter; Rather, it addresses one of the most harmful forms of procrastination, when transferring money turns from a legitimate act into a means of evading fulfillment.

Let us take an example close to reality: a creditor holds a judgment for a large amount, and a debtor claims that he does not have enough to pay, while evidence appears that his assets were transferred to a person close to him or that unusual financial transactions were carried out. Here, implementation should not stop at the names appearing in the records. Rather, the investigation extends, in accordance with statutory controls, to the truth of the actions and their purpose. Whoever thinks that transferring his money to a relative or friend is enough to keep it out of reach of implementation, he must realize that changing the name of the owner does not necessarily change the reality of the transaction.

The system's tools do not stop at tracking funds; It also addresses actions that may be aimed at harming creditors, and allows, in specific cases, to request their judicial invalidation. But this does not mean that every financial transfer between relatives is subject to accusation, nor that the mere default of the debtor makes him a fraud. There is a fundamental difference between someone who is unable to fulfill his duty despite his good intentions, and someone who has the ability and then deliberately hides it. This distinction is what gives enforcement tools their legitimacy and prevents them from being used to harm the debtor.

At the same time, the regime did not neglect to protect the debtor and his livelihood, as it set controls for seizure and exceptions for some funds necessary for life and work. The purpose of implementation is not to strip a person of everything he owns, but rather to enable the creditor to exercise his right within the limits of the system. Justice that is fair to the creditor should not be unfair to the debtor, just as protecting the debtor should not become a cover for procrastination.

The effects of this development do not stop at the doors of the courts; Rather, it extends to markets and the business environment. The contractor implementing a project, the supplier selling on credit, and the investor entering a new partnership all calculate the risks of non-fulfilment before signing contracts. The clearer and more effective the implementation procedures are, the more confidence in transactions is enhanced, and the more accurate risk assessment becomes. The local or foreign investor not only asks about the ease of establishing his company, but also about his ability to recover his rights if the other party breaches his obligations.

From this angle, the Ministry of Justice’s efforts to digitize services, facilitate procedures, enhance electronic connectivity, develop implementation tools, and benefit from licensed service providers gain additional economic value. These transformations, when integrated, contribute to reducing the time and cost incurred by the right holder, and support the goals of Saudi Vision 2030 in building a more reliable and attractive business environment for investment.

However, the true test of any system is not the strength of its texts alone, but rather the impact of its implementation. It will be important to see how these tools affect the speed of fulfilling rights, the effectiveness of tracking funds, and the ability of procedures to distinguish between a defaulting debtor and someone who deliberately obstructs implementation. The success of development is measured by what the litigant touches in reality, not by what he reads on the pages of the system.

Perhaps, if we want to summarize the purpose of this overall development, it lies in a simple fact that is often absent amid the details of litigation and its procedures: that a judicial ruling, no matter how strong its reasons and the soundness of its pronouncement, does not fully achieve its goal if its owner remains unable to fulfill his right. Hence, the real value of the new implementation system lies in bridging the distance between the ruling and the right, so that the victory of the litigant is not the end of a dispute and the beginning of another suffering. This is complete justice: that the right reaches its owner, and not that he is satisfied with carrying a ruling proving that it is his.