The Hidden Trap of Bankruptcy: How the State Demands the “Keys” It Has Already Taken From You – And How to Escape

On 30/12/2025, the following article by our firm’s managing partner, Dimitrios Piperakis, was published in E economy.

——————————

Imagine this: Your car is seized, you are legally prohibited from driving it, the keys are locked in a safe deposit box controlled by strangers—and months later, you are penalized because you didn’t take it for its MOT inspection.

Absurd?

And yet, this is the harsh reality of the Greek business landscape where bankruptcy dispossession (πτωχευτική απαλλοτρίωση) collides head-on with the Tax Administration. This issue perennially affects entrepreneurs who are called upon to protect the assets they manage, their personal wealth, or even their personal liberty, while wrestling with the paradoxes of the Greek state.

The case study described below is factual, based on a real legal case, and demonstrates that effectively navigating such crises requires a combination of high-level legal expertise and strategic foresight.

The Chronicle of the Absurd – A Real-Life Scenario

Company “X” is declared bankrupt in January 2025. From the moment the court decision is published, bankruptcy dispossession occurs automatically: The Board of Directors is removed, and access to bank accounts, archives, and premises is prohibited. Everything passes into the hands of the Bankruptcy Trustee.

Months later, the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (IAPR) initiates a tax audit using digital tools. It requests accounting books and records via email.

Initially, the Authority appears to ignore the fact that the company is bankrupt, resulting in the Trustee not being informed (!). When this oversight is finally rectified, the bankrupt company’s response is delayed because the Trustee is in the process of inventorying and valuing the estate. The IAPR ignores the Trustee’s pleas for an extension and proceeds to an estimated tax assessment (off-the-books determination), imposing taxes amounting to millions of euros. Furthermore, it imposes safeguarding measures, freezing not only the assets of the bankrupt company but also the personal bank accounts of the former CEO, attributing “lack of cooperation” to him (!).

But how can one be held liable for acts they are legally forbidden to perform?

The Burning Questions and Strategic Answers

“The company went bankrupt – why are they chasing me personally?” Under current legislation, the liability of directors is joint and several with that of the company. However, for safeguarding measures to be extended beyond corporate assets to the personal assets of directors, the element of fault (specifically intent or willful misconduct) on the part of the directors is required.

Can “intent” be substantiated when the “tax violation” took place after the company’s bankruptcy, at a time when the directors no longer exercised formal or actual management? Obviously, no such intent can be substantiated. On the contrary, this likely constitutes gross negligence on the part of the Administration—a fact you must aggressively demonstrate and overturn.

“Is there a valid reason for freezing my personal bank accounts? How will I survive?” In this specific context, administrative measures against a director’s personal assets are intended solely as preventive and safeguarding steps to ensure the State suffers no loss. Up to this point, it is understandable.

However, the assets of the bankrupt company are already frozen in favor of the creditors under bankruptcy law (and thus in favor of the State) and are in the hands of the Trustee who has a specific mandate. Seeking further security through the personal assets of a director—who lacks the element of intent for the reasons mentioned above—constitutes not only an abusive but also an illegal action by the Administration.

“Is the Administration’s persistence in contacting the former accountant instead of the Trustee correct?” The answer is unequivocally negative. The Administration is acting unlawfully.

The Prudent Course of Action for the Entrepreneur

Passivity and inertia are not options.

You must immediately highlight the failures and illegalities of the Administration, especially when they have direct consequences on you personally.

The method is clear: As long as there is factual and procedural capacity, submit your arguments in writing to the Administration and demand immediate restoration. In the very likely scenario that the latter either fails to resolve the situation or rejects your claims, recourse to the Courts must be immediate, as the arguments exist, and the strategy has been laid out.

In this way, you do not forfeit your rights. You protect your reputation by demonstrating that you bear no liability; rather, the liability lies with the Administration. You leave no room for third parties to interpret your silence or inaction as an admission of guilt.

In Lieu of a Conclusion

The case of director liability following bankruptcy is a game of chess played on unequal terms. The State has all the pieces, but you can have the strategy. With proper preparation and composure, the “trap” can be broken.

link: Τα κλειδιά – E economy