Abstract

Israeli enforcement law uses both direct and indirect enforcement — the former via attachment of assets, and the latter via imprisonment of the debtor. The use of indirect enforcement via imprisonment is problematic, as it violates the basic rights of the debtor. I will argue that in response to this problem, the law created a framework for the "debtor of limited means." I will demonstrate that not only does this create an improper definition of the task of the Chief Enforcement Officer, but that it is also an inefficient way of dealing with an insolvent debtor. I will propose that the system differentiate between debtors who cannot pay their debts and those who do not want to pay their debts. I believe that encouraging the insolvent debtor to file for of bankruptcy will avoid the problem of imprisonment and enable the Chief Enforcement Officer to return to his natural role as judge of enforcement. Additionally, I suggest creating a separate track of "consumer enforcement," which would avoid the whole system of installments, imprisonment, and debtors of limited means, at least regarding consumer credit.