can the government or debt collectors garnish money from any bank account to which the debtor has access?
There is a difference between an owner and a signer. An owner is the legal owner of the funds. A signer has access to withdraw the funds. In most cases, when a new personal account is opened the name is added as an owner&signer. However, that is not always the case. A person could be an owner, but not a signer, in a custodial arrangement. For example, a minor child may be an owner only on their account with a custodial parent listed as a signer. The minor could not withdraw from the account. A person could be a signer, but not an owner, in a business or estate/trust account. The business or estate would be the owner with individuals listed as signers only. The business employees do not own the funds, they are only allowed to withdraw and disburse the funds on behalf of the company. The creditor can only garnish/withhold funds that are owned by the indebted. If the second person on the account is only a signer, those funds cannot be withheld as part of a judgment against the second person (they don't own those funds). However, simply titling the second person as a signer only is not sufficient. If you share access with the second person and allow them to spend the money for their own benefit, they are no longer just a signer. They have become an owner because you are sharing your funds with them. Think of the business relationship as an example. The employee is a signer so they can withdraw funds and pay business expenses, like the electric bill. If the employee withdrew funds and bought herself a new dress, she is stealing because she does not own those funds. If the second person on the account buys things for themselves, or transfers some of the money into their own account, they are demonstrating that more than a signer-only relationship exists. A true signer-only relationship is where the individual can only withdraw funds on the owner's behalf. For example, the owner is out of town and needs a bill paid, the signer can write a check and pay the bill for the owner. A limited power of attorney may be worth looking into. With a limited POA, the owner can define the scope and expiration of the power of attorney. With this arrangement, the second person becomes an executor of the owner under certain circumstances. For example, you could write a power of attorney that states something like: John Smith is hereby granted the limited power to withdraw funds from account 1234, on deposit at Anytown Bank, for the purpose of paying debts and obligations and otherwise maintain my estate in the event of my incapacitation or inability to attend to my own affairs. This Power of Attorney shall expire on it's fifth anniversary unless renewed. If the person you have granted the power of attorney abuses their access, you could sue them and you would only have to demonstrate that they overstepped the scope of their power. "I would call the bank and ask how the person is on the account.   If they are an owner, or are an authorized user, or what type of owner they are, etc.    If the bank makes the distinction between ""user"" and ""owner"" then most likely, your funds are not able to be seized.  If they are a joint owner, then, typically, 100% of the money is yours and 100% of the money is theirs and either of you could withdraw all the money, close the account, or have the money seized as part of a legal action." I agree with the comments so far. Access doesn't equal ownership. There are also different levels of access. E.g. your financial advisor can have access to your retirement account via power of attorney, but only ability to add or change things, not withdraw. Another consideration is when a creditor tries to garnish wages / bank accounts, it needs to find the accounts first. This could be done by running a credit report via SSN. My guess is an account with access-only rights won't show up on such a report. I suppose the court could subpoena bank information. But I'm not an attorney so please check with a professional.
Banks cannot survive without the government.  Once people lose faith in the governement, the banking system will fail.  The banking system failing is a symptom of the issue, not a cause.  Backstopping the banks protects the general populace, and prevents runs which will actually destroy the banking system.  The burden shifts from the banks to the government.  But a gaurantee is not an actual payment.  The banks still operate as normal without any cash from the government, but with the knowledge that, if they ARE over extended, the government will take on their debt.  the government gaurantee lowers the rates that the banks pay to raise debt to continue to operate.  So let's say PIIGS fully bail out their banking system, paying off all debt, that's worse case.  Where does the money come from?   Revenues, aka taxes.  If the gov't takes on the bank debt and has positve revenue, no problem, a little less hand outs, but the country as a whole benefits from having a functioning banking system.  If revenues are poor or negative, however, it's just adding to the deficit.  Gov't can print money, don't forget.   But if revenues are poor and there's no hope to see them improve...Boom, all hell breaks loose, and you get Europe. Generally speaking, granting rights to one bank account (e.g. making a joint account) does not extend rights to other accounts or otherwise let one joint owner create new obligations on the other owner (e.g. opening a line of credit that the other owner must pay for), except to the extent of the joint account.  I assume there are no UK rules that would change this feature. The other party can of course withdraw all the money without need for your approval.  This also means that the joint account could be exposed to all the creditors of either party.  If your account joint tenant has huge debts, the creditors could theoretically look to the joint account for satisfaction.  At least, that would be an issue under US law. Frankly, it may be simpler to get a separate account for the other person (if possible) and make transfers with online banking.  It could also make sense to get a rechargeable banking card, if those are in the UK, which works like a debit card and can be reloaded through various means (sometimes a call, sometimes online deposits, sometimes in physical stores).  There may be fees to getting such a card or a second account, of course.  The benefit is that the cardholder has no access to your account and you control recharging.  Such cards are widely available in the US to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank accounts. Note also the FATCA complication with adding a US person to your account.  My understanding is that a number of non-US banks will simply close the accounts of Americans, rather than deal with FFI hassles under FATCA. This is called a fraudulent conveyance because its purpose is to prevent a creditor from getting repaid. It is subject to claw back under US law, which is a fancy way of saying that your friend will have to pay the bank back. Most jurisdictions have similar laws. It is probably a crime as well, but that varies by jurisdiction. There no legal framework that allows states like the US or countries in Europe to default on their debt.  Should congress pass a law to default the US supreme court is likely to nullify the law. I walked away from a house last year and don't regret it a single bit.  I owed $545,000 and the bank sold it a month after moving out for $328,900.  So technically I guess I can be on the  hook to someone for the missing $216,100 for many years to come.  Oh well.  They can come after me if they want and I'll declare bankruptcy then. "Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread...  &gt; You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off).   Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending.  Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more.  If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money.  In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, *and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans.  With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest.  Here is an article on it:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html  &gt; According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a ""perverted incentive"" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves.   Not to mention:  http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html  &gt; So essentially, the Department is given a choice:  Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs).  From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario,  for not only the  return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well,     And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection.  And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class.  Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make *itself* whole.  And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.?  And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects.  Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on).  So it's more complicated than having ""robbed the person holding the debt"".  Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment.  In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached.  If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money.  Having virtual $ to bet means you can serve market segments that have higher risk.  This makes MORE money for the banks, that's why they do it.  They are already playing with funny money, so they don't lose any even if you default and move to another country.  And the money you ""spent"" has also made its way back to them in various amounts, such as your professor's mortgage payments, auto loan, etc.  Your taking on debt already helped the bank get its OTHER loans repaid.  So, roughly speaking, if you took out $90,000 and $3,000 of that made its way back to the bank through various means, they haven't lost any money, because it only cost them $3,000 actual dollars in the first place." You will probably not be able to figure out the bank from the account number. You can check for your name on registries of abandoned bank accounts or unclaimed money, but without more information, you don't have a lot of options. I've skimmed through the answers given and I'd like do add another possible scenario.  I've recently heard about this exact thing happening to someone only the money originally was a loan taken in the receivers name. 1) Scumbag finds out personal data – including social number, bank account and phone – of Innocent Victim.  2) Scumbag takes out a loan in the name of Innocent Victim. The money are sent to IV's account. 3) Scumbag calls IV saying 'Oh, I've made a mistake, blah, blah, yada, yada. Could you please send the money back to me? My bank account is...' 4) Innocent Victim, being the good guy that he/she is, of course want to help out and send the money to Scumbag. 5) Scumbag makes a cash withdrawal and is no longer anywhere to be found and Innocent Victim is left with a loan but no money. Foreclosure is at a high level the bank declaring that the debtor cannot pay their promissory note (their debt).  This is shortly followed by default, which is the removal of debtors rights to the property.  After the debtor has defaulted, he either chooses to voluntarily remove himself and his belongings from the property, or is forcibly evicted.  In the US eviction is carried out by local law enforcement, such as the sheriff's office.   The bank is now the sole owner of the property, and proceeds to sell it, in an attempt to recoup their investment.  If the bank cannot recoup their investment by selling the house, the rest may be converted to unsecured debt against the debtor.  If the bank chooses to forgive the remaining debt, the debtor may have a tax liability for cancellation of debt.  Also the debtor may also be liable for any appreciation the house did before it was sold, but this likely to be nontaxable if the house in question is the debtor's primary residence.  They also send the credit bureaus the notice of foreclosure, which is how your credit score is hurt. Private Mortgage Insurance or Lenders Mortgage Insurance will pay the lender some amount back to cover their losses. See Also: The only way someone can take money out of your account using just your sort code and account number is if you set up a direct debit to pay them (or someone pretending to be you sets up the direct debit). Even with Paperless DD's this can take some time. Anyone who can process debit card transactions can take money from your account if they have your debit card number, expiry date and cvv number. Direct debits do not have an expiry date so they are normally used for paying automatic regular long term bills (like rent, rates, electricity etc). Note, anyone with an ordinary bank account can pay money into account,  using your sort code and account number. You can't be arrested or jailed in the UK for owing money (hasn't been true for about a hundred years). Unless it's a large unpaid fine or a tax bill, and probably not even then. Neither police nor immigration have any interest in who you owe money to. "The problems of the government ""watching your money"" only apply to paper cash money which has pictures of presidents on it, and it's for anti-laundering/anti-crime/drug reasons. Nobody cares who you write a $100,000 check to.  The paper trail is there, but nobody ever looks at it. No reputable money management firm would even want cash. The apocryphal ""briefcase of money"" would be a nightmare for them. They'd need to count it in front of you, guard it, call in a security firm to transport it, and then make the same exact justifications to the government that you have to make, which means, chain of custody, they'd have to give you the same grilling your bank just gave you!  They would strongly discourage cash for those reasons.   So the crook wants the paper bag o' cash because he plans to do none of those things; he plans to take it from you and doesn't want a paper trail.  Often when the financial industry uses the term ""cash"", it's a slang for checks, money orders, cashiers checks, savings bonds, and other things that instantly map to denominated US dollars or a foreign currency routinely traded like yen, pound, franc, or Euro.  The opposite of ""cash"" would be stocks, bonds, real estate holdings, patents, heirlooms, debt, vehicles, etc. where they must be sold to make them into USD.   Just as a warning: most ""financial management firms"" rip you off; they pretend to be cheap or free, but actually earn their pay through deception: they talk you into fairly mediocre investments which pay them a huge sales commission. Sure, your money goes up, but not half as much as it should've, and they pocketed the difference.  They also recommend products which are unnecessarily complex, as a snow job.  Investment is simpler than that." Safe deposit boxes are rented out to customers, and their content is not bank's property. Money deposits are not being taken by the creditors if a bank goes bankrupt, for the same reason - its not bank's money, it belongs to the depositors. However, frequently banks go bankrupt because they do not have enough cash at hand to pay back the depositors. In this case, unless insured (up to $250K in the US, EUR100K in EU), some or all of the deposits may not be immediately (or even at all) available. Depositors become creditors of the bank in the bankruptcy proceedings. Safe deposit box, however, is rented to the customer, and the content is not removed by the bank to be used elsewhere, as happens with monetary deposits. So even if the bank is bankrupt and doesn't have enough money to cover the monetary deposits, the content of the safe deposit boxes doesn't magically disappear, and the owner can get it back. The access to the deposit box itself may be limited due to the bankruptcy, but the content will remain there waiting for its owners. In the United States, when a bank goes bankrupt, FDIC takes over it and its assets. Safe deposit box rental contract is an asset. It is taken over by the FDIC and will be sold to a buyer (usually as a part of the whole branch where the box is located), who will continue operating/servicing it. If the bank is calling your employer, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) limits where and when debt collectors can contact consumer debtors. In many cases, debt collectors that contact debtors at work are violating the FDCPA. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/a-debt-collector-calling-me-work-is-allowed.html According to LegalZoom:  If your debtor is unwilling to pay and you know they have the means,   it's time to use your local sheriff. You have three options to   collect: a bank levy, wage garnishment, or a real estate lien. It sounds like you'll need to reach out to your local police/sheriff's department and they can further help you out and get you your money.