Skip to content
Ozpolitics
Embargoes in Colombia 2026: these are the cases in which a bank account cannot be retained by court order

4 June 2026

Papua New Guinea

Embargoes in Colombia 2026: these are the cases in which a bank account cannot be retained by court order

Every year, thousands of Colombians face seizure processes due to outstanding debts, tax obligations or judicial decisions. However, current regulations contemplate protection mechanisms that prevent a person from being completely without financial resources as a result of these measures.

For that reason, there are specific amounts and resources that cannot be affected by seizures, even when there is a court or administrative order in progress.

Colombian regulation establishes a limit of non-seizability for the savings accounts of natural persons, with the objective of guaranteeing the so-called vital minimum.

This protection seeks to ensure that those facing collection processes can conserve a portion of their resources to cover basic needs while the pending obligation is resolved.

The current provisions for the period between October 2025 and September 2026 establish a maximum protected amount that exceeds 55 million pesos. However, there are exceptions related to support obligations, debts with state entities and other special processes contemplated by law.

In accordance with the regulation established by the Financial Superintendency, from October 1, 2025 and until September 30, 2026, the limit of non-seizability for savings accounts of natural persons was set at $55,099,308.

This means that if a person has a balance equal to or less than that figure in their protected accounts, those resources cannot be subject to seizure. When the money exceeds this amount, only the excess part can be retained and not the entire available balance.

The measure also covers some digital financial products whose owner is a natural person, including electronic deposit services and digital wallets that operate under the same conditions established for savings accounts.

The authorities remember that this limit is updated periodically, so the amounts may vary from one year to the next in accordance with the provisions issued by the Financial Superintendence.

One of the aspects that usually generates the most doubts among users is whether the protected limit operates individually for each bank account.

The answer is no. The financial authorities explain that to determine unseizability, the total resources that a natural person has in the different accounts that may be subject to the process are taken into consideration.

For this reason, the existing balances in several accounts can be added to verify whether or not they exceed the limit established by current regulations.

The objective of this provision is to prevent a person from distributing their resources in multiple financial products with the intention of evading seizure measures authorized by the competent authorities.

Although there is general protection for certain resources, the law provides for specific exceptions.

Among them are obligations related to food quotas, debts derived from processes carried out by state entities and some commitments acquired with cooperatives.

Tax obligations, economic sanctions and fines imposed by public bodies may also give rise to seizure measures within established legal procedures.

Another important aspect is that financial entities cannot seize resources on their own initiative. For the measure to be valid, there must be a court order issued by a judge or an administrative act issued by a competent authority, such as the National Tax and Customs Directorate (Dian).

Likewise, the regulations protect certain resources considered essential for subsistence, including the legal minimum wage in the cases provided for by law and some social benefits of a food nature.

On the contrary, legal entities do not have the general benefit of non-seizure protection that does protect natural persons. Consequently, companies and societies may be subject to seizure measures in accordance with the obligations they have outstanding.

The authorities recommend that citizens periodically review their financial situation and promptly attend to any judicial or administrative requirement to prevent collection processes from reaching instances that involve the immobilization of bank resources.

Latest articles
Embargoes in Colombia 2026: these are the cases in which a bank account cannot be retained by court order
UBS sells $1.5 billion AT1 bonds after pause in Swiss reforms
“I have unblocked your account”: Iván Cepeda responded to Teleantioquia after controversy over blocking on X
Ozpolitics

To stay informed about the news in Australia with a reliable and unbiased media outlet, join the Ozpolitics community today! Visit our website and subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest information directly in your inbox. You can also participate in the discussions by commenting on our articles. We are eager to hear your point of view. Together, let's build an informed and engaged future for Australia!

[email protected]

Copyright © 2026 Ozpolitics

  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • Fiji
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Who we are
  • Contact
Featured articles
Embargoes in Colombia 2026: these are the cases in which a bank account cannot be retained by court order

4 June 2026

Papua New Guinea
Embargoes in Colombia 2026: these are the cases in which a bank account cannot be retained by court order

Charlie

UBS sells $1.5 billion AT1 bonds after pause in Swiss reforms

4 June 2026

Australia
UBS sells $1.5 billion AT1 bonds after pause in Swiss reforms

Charlie

“I have unblocked your account”: Iván Cepeda responded to Teleantioquia after controversy over blocking on X

4 June 2026

Papua New Guinea
“I have unblocked your account”: Iván Cepeda responded to Teleantioquia after controversy over blocking on X

Charlie