Insolvency and asset recovery today are no longer about technical filings alone. The real challenge is turning judgments into recoveries, especially in a fragmented global landscape where assets move quickly and legal recognition varies across borders.
Singapore has positioned itself as a leader in insolvency reform. At the end of 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) launched its Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol, creating a tailored arbitration process for insolvency disputes. Around the same time, Parliament made the Simplified Insolvency Programme permanent, strengthening restructuring and winding up processes. These reforms give practitioners new tools to sustain complex cases and provide creditors with more certainty.
Across wider Asia, Hong Kong SAR continues to strengthen its role as a finance hub, with courts embracing cooperation with mainland China and recognizing foreign liquidation orders efficiently. Malaysia has taken a major step forward by adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, creating greater predictability for creditors. Indonesia remains difficult, with limited recognition for foreign insolvency practitioners, making swift action essential before assets dissipate.
For clients, the problem is clear. A judgment in one jurisdiction may mean little if assets are hidden in another. Without recognition or enforcement, creditors risk spending millions on litigation only to end up with paper victories. The opportunity lies in jurisdictions like Singapore and Malaysia, where reforms are creating clearer pathways for enforcement, but urgency remains critical in places like Indonesia.
Strategic Disruption in Asset Recovery
Traditional enforcement methods often fall short. Complex corporate structures, shadow targets and unregistered mortgages add layers of difficulty. Litigation funding has become a critical enabler. In Singapore, third party funding is now common, allowing practitioners to build strong legal teams for cross border disputes. Hong Kong relies on liquidation funding, while Malaysia and Indonesia allow practitioners to source funding independently.
Courts are also widening liability. Malaysia’s Section 540 fraudulent trading provisions now capture directors, shadow directors and auxiliary parties involved in asset siphoning. This expansion signals a shift toward targeting professional enablers such as auditors and advisors who facilitate fraud. For clients, this means recovery strategies can now extend beyond the company itself to those who enabled misconduct.
Reconceptualizing Insolvency Strategies
The divergence between common law and civil law jurisdictions remains stark. Hong Kong and Singapore emphasize direct enforcement, while Indonesia relies on indirect control mechanisms such as shareholder resolutions. Malaysia’s broadened fraudulent trading provisions create new opportunities to hold wrongdoers accountable.
For creditors, the lesson is that waiting for legal certainty is risky. Assets can vanish long before recognition orders are granted. Practitioners who act quickly, leveraging director appointments or receivership powers, can secure control and preserve value.
Asset Recovery and Enforcement: Solving the Client Problem
This is where Asset Recovery and Enforcement (ARE) comes in. The challenge clients face is not winning in court but enforcing outcomes across borders. Many spend millions on litigation only to discover that assets have already been dissipated. ARE bridges that gap.
By stepping into directorship roles, acting as receivers and using liquidator powers, Kroll’s team secures control before assets disappear. Integrated investigations map hidden assets, while corporate mechanisms allow enforcement without waiting for lengthy recognition processes. For clients, this means judgments are transformed into tangible recoveries.
Leadership Perspective
Kroll Asia practice is leading in this space, with Singapore practitioners at the forefront of innovation. Recent reforms in Singapore and Malaysia, combined with Hong Kong’s cooperation with Mainland China, are reshaping the enforcement environment.
For clients, the impact is direct. In a market where judgments often remain unenforced, Kroll’s approach shows how strategy and corporate control can turn legal victories into real recoveries. Singapore’s reforms, Malaysia’s adoption of the Model Law and Hong Kong’s recognition practices all point to a future where creditors have more certainty, but only if they act decisively and partner with teams that know how to enforce across borders.
Looking Ahead
This is, of course, a dynamic and intricate landscape. The speed to act is always the defining step forward, yet several emerging trends are set to reshape insolvency and asset recovery, which we will explore further in the coming months.
- Funding Models: Litigation and liquidation funding will expand, sustaining long term cross border battles.
- AI Powered Asset Tracing: Advanced forensic tools are revolutionizing investigations, enabling faster identification of hidden assets.
- Jurisdictional Shifts: Malaysia’s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law signals momentum toward standardized recognition across Asia.
For more on Jin Low’s work in asset recovery and the experiences shaping her perspective, read the Expert Spotlight: Meet Restructuring Expert Jin Low feature.
