Transferring money to a specific person's bank account in a fraud case is an important starting point for an investigation. However, owning an account and knowingly taking part in fraud are not the same thing. The investigation must establish who used the account, what the account holder knew, who controlled the movement of the money and what relationship the holder had with other persons. Conversely, a defence that the account was used within a friendship or a work relationship does not, on its own, remove liability in every file.
Short answer: For criminal liability arising from the use of a bank account in fraud, the elements of the offence and the form of participation must be proven for each person individually. Article 158/4 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), which entered into force on July 31, 2026, provides for a reduction of the penalty by half where participation is limited to giving certain account and payment-instrument information for the purpose of unjust gain. This provision neither automatically treats every account holder as guilty nor leaves every case of lending an account unpunished. [1]
Why is account ownership alone not enough?
The account that receives the money and the person who commits the offence
Under the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), Article 157 defines fraud as deceiving a person through deceptive conduct, causing loss, and obtaining a benefit for oneself or another. Where information systems or banks and credit institutions are used as tools, the aggravated forms in TCK Article 158 may come into play. Whether an aggravated form actually exists is not determined merely by the fact that money passed through a bank; the method used to commit the offence is examined.
The bank's confirmation that an account belongs to a specific person shows who owns the account. That information alone does not reveal who published the fake advertisement, who spoke with the victim or who directed the account for criminal purposes. A conviction requires that the account movements be linked to other evidence and that the act attributed to the person be established.
The personal nature of criminal liability
Under TCK Article 20, no one may be held responsible for another person's act. The conduct of the person who made it possible for the account to be used, and their mental element, are examined. Family ties, friendship or legal ownership of an account do not automatically attribute another person's fraudulent act to the account holder.
This principle does not mean that an account holder cannot be investigated at all. Giving account details, handing over a card, sharing verification codes, or withdrawing or transferring money may all be investigated. The legal outcome depends on the information and intent with which these acts were carried out. The reasoning that links the meaning of a piece of evidence to the conclusion drawn from it must be visible.
How are intent and the defence of having been deceived assessed?
The element of knowing and wanting
Intent under TCK Article 21 means carrying out the legal elements of an offence knowingly and willingly. In a case where an account has been lent, the account holder's conscious contribution to the fraud is examined. The offender does not need to know the identities of all the victims or the statutory article number; however, the knowledge and will connected with the specific offence must be shown by evidence.
Being careless in taking the necessary care is different from knowingly taking part in fraud. Because negligent fraud is not criminalised as a separate offence, mere inattention cannot take the place of intent. Nevertheless, the court may assess the person's level of knowledge not only from their own statement but also from the way the transactions were carried out and from other evidence.
Conditional intent and mere suspicion
In assessing conditional intent (olası kast), what matters is whether the person foresaw that the elements of the offence might be realised and nonetheless continued the conduct. Every unusual transaction or risk that is understood only later does not show that conditional intent existed from the outset. What information reached the account holder and on what date, and what the person did despite that information, must be explained.
For example, continuing to provide accounts and verification opportunities to the same persons after a notification from a bank or a victim may call for a different assessment from the first transaction. By contrast, correspondence that gives the impression of a genuine business relationship, and notifications made as soon as the incident became known, may require the defence to be examined. No single indicator gives a definitive result for every file. [5]
A job offer or a friendship
Where the account holder claims remote work, a commission, debt collection or help for a friend, the reality of that relationship is examined. All correspondence, the terms of the offer, how well the parties knew each other, the work performed and the explanations of the payments are assessed. The defence must not remain a general account drawn up after the event.
Adverse facts must not be overlooked either. Rapid withdrawal of money received from many foreign persons, the constant provision of different accounts, or decisive contradictions in the defence may require an explanation. However, the existence of these facts does not justify rejecting, without reasons, requests to collect favourable evidence that the State can access.
Joint perpetration and the distinction from aiding and abetting
The actual role in committing the offence
Under TCK Article 37, joint perpetration is assessed on the basis of a decision to commit the offence together and the role played in carrying it out. The person who prepares the fake advertisement, speaks with the victim and directs the flow of money may not be characterised in the same way as a person who only gives a specific account detail. Each defendant's contribution must be shown separately.
Aiding under TCK Article 39 may arise for contributions that facilitate the commission of an offence but do not amount to joint perpetration. The fact that an account is indispensable does not by itself show that every account holder had joint control over the whole act. On the other hand, where the contribution appears to consist only of giving an account, the other evidence of organisation and direction in the file cannot be disregarded.
Why does the status of participation matter?
The nature of participation affects the penalty to be imposed and the provisions to be applied. In a defence, it may not be enough to say only "I did not take the money"; the agreement reached before the money was received, the control over the use of the account and the connection of later conduct with the offence must be discussed. A transaction carried out after the offence was completed may be evidence of an earlier agreement, but it may also call for a different legal assessment.
Doctrine has discussed the conditions under which making an account available amounts to aiding. Kantarcı's 2025 study examines this distinction in detail. However, that study was published before TCK Article 158/4 was added in 2026 and cannot replace the current provision. [5]
The 2026 amendment: what does Article 158/4 TCK provide?
A halved penalty for limited participation
TCK Article 158/4, added by Article 13 of Law No. 7589, regulates the situation in which participation in the offences under TCK Articles 157 and 158 is limited to a specific conduct. Where participation is limited to giving, for the purpose of obtaining an unjust benefit for oneself or another, the payment instruments belonging to oneself or another, or the mandatory information or tools that enable use of an account, the penalty is reduced by half. [1]
The provision covers accounts with banks, brokerage firms, payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers, in addition to payment instruments such as bank and credit cards. Accordingly, the review is not limited to a classic bank card. Still, the concrete way each instrument was used and the limit of the person's contribution must be determined.
Which questions must be asked when applying the provision?
First, it is examined whether the offence and the person's participation in it have been proven. Then it is discussed whether the aim of unjust benefit exists and whether the contribution is limited to the giving act stated in the provision. The position of a person who planned the fraud or took a further active part in the deception cannot be equated with that of a person who only gave account information.
Because of the phrase "to oneself or another" in the law, the fact that the account holder did not receive a personal commission does not by itself show that the new paragraph does not apply. On the other hand, where someone claims to have acted without knowledge within an ordinary assistance relationship, intent must first be examined. The reduction provision cannot be used as a shortcut that assumes the mental element of the offence.
Relationship with the aiding reduction and earlier acts
How TCK Article 39 and TCK Article 158/4 apply to the same concrete facts must be justified by reference to the form of participation and the purpose of the special provision. It is not correct to assume that two halvings would automatically be applied one after the other in every file in which an account was lent. This article does not rely on any assumption that settled Court of Cassation case law exists on the new paragraph.
For acts committed before the new provision, the principle of the more lenient law under TCK Article 7 is assessed. The outcome of applying the old and the new law as a whole to the concrete facts is compared. In finalised files, too, the appropriate adaptation and execution provisions must be examined. A change in the law should not be characterised simply as "new evidence found"; a legal change and the factual event are different things.
Which evidence may be decisive?
Bank records and transaction authority
Account opening documents, account movements, the dates and times of transactions, the channels used and, where available, device or session records may be requested. If money was withdrawn from an ATM, camera footage is relevant; if it was withdrawn at a branch, the transaction documents; if it was transferred to another account, the information on that account must be examined. The type of data a bank can keep and the retention period may differ from one record to another.
A record showing whose account was used must be distinguished from a record showing who actually carried out the transaction. The device, IP address or telephone connection, shared use and technical conditions must be considered. These records should not be assumed to identify the individual with certainty. Where necessary, the method of the examination should be questioned within the scope of an objection to an expert report.
Messages, calls and camera footage
Conversations with the victim, instructions given to the account holder and whether the parties knew each other beforehand are important. Where a screenshot is submitted, the integrity of the conversation, the attribution of the account and the way it was obtained must be explained. Drawing conclusions from only a few selected messages may cause the context to be lost. A similar issue is also addressed separately in digital evidence and screenshots in criminal proceedings.
Call detail records (HTS) may show a communication relationship but do not by themselves reveal the content of a conversation. For ATM or surrounding camera records, the date range and location should be stated as precisely as possible. Because footage may be lost once its retention period expires, requests for records that can be obtained only through the competent authorities should not be delayed.
Conduct after the incident
The request to close the account, the notification to the bank, communication with the victim and the application to the prosecutor should be placed on a timeline. These acts do not by themselves guarantee an acquittal, but they can help show when the person learned of the incident. Conversely, deleting evidence or creating a document contrary to the truth after learning of the incident damages the defence and may also have legal consequences.
The defence should rest on records that actually exist and on their lawful collection. The rights during statement-taking and interrogation and access to the file and restriction orders are important for understanding which evidence may be viewed at which stage.
Constitutional Court Halil Akkaya decision: examining exculpatory evidence
The subject of the decision and the ground for violation
In the Halil Akkaya application to the Constitutional Court (AYM), the defence's requests to collect evidence were examined in a fraud prosecution in which a bank account had been used. In its decision of June 7, 2023, Application No. 2021/2754, the AYM assessed the importance of requests such as the investigation of telephone numbers, footage of the moment money was withdrawn, and the recording of a call with the bank's customer services made to close the account. [3]
Where evidence that the applicant could not obtain by their own means, and which required State assistance, was not made available through reasonable procedural facilities, a violation followed under the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. The failure of the reasoned judgment to evaluate another file, obtained because of a similar incident, was also taken into account in the review.
What can and cannot be concluded from the decision
The decision does not state that every bank account holder must be acquitted. Its basic criterion is that important defence requests bearing on the proof of the offence must be assessed with concrete reasons. What the requested record would show, why the applicant could not obtain it themselves and how it could affect the judgment must be explained.
Claiming that the file contains an incomplete investigation is different from establishing judicially that the person is definitely innocent. The AYM's violation finding requires that the evidence be reassessed in a fresh and fair procedure. For an individual application to the Constitutional Court in criminal cases, the connection of the complaint with this constitutional guarantee must also be established.
Why is the Court of Cassation's 2026 rejection decision important?
A request for reversal and the chamber's outcome may differ
In the decision of the Court of Cassation 11th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) dated January 19, 2026, E.2025/4380, K.2026/647, the process concerning the request for retrial of a convicted person who asserted that another person had used his account was examined. The Ministry and the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office asked that the facts shown be evaluated within the scope of new evidence. However, the Chamber rejected the request for reversal in favour of the law, stating that these matters were largely known and evaluated in the earlier proceedings. [4]
Presenting the favourable statements in the request section and saying that "the person whose account was used was acquitted" is wrong. The decision is not an acquittal. Moreover, it was issued before TCK Article 158/4, added in July 2026, and therefore cannot be used as a decision applying the new paragraph.
Why the defence must be built in the first trial
This example shows the importance of substantiating, in the first proceedings, the favourable facts and documents on which the defence relies. Repeating the same defence later in a longer petition does not always create grounds for a retrial. Where there is genuinely new evidence, the difference from what was evaluated in the earlier judgment and its effect on the outcome must be shown.
Listing only general precedents, without identifying whether the decisive reasoning of the conviction was the bank record, a contradictory statement or the technical connection, may also prove insufficient. Acquittal for lack of evidence and effective defence before the Court of Cassation on appeal should therefore be considered together with the file's own evidentiary structure.
Suspension of the account and seizure of the funds
The temporary measure under Article 128/A CMK
Article 128/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) allows the relevant financial institution to suspend an account for up to forty-eight hours where there is reasonable suspicion that the information technology-related offences listed in the provision have been committed. Aggravated fraud under TCK Article 158/1-f and l falls within this scope. The transaction and account movements are reported to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office without delay; the account holder is also notified. [2]
The account holder may apply to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to lift the suspension. The prosecutor is required to decide on this application within twenty-four hours. This procedure and long-term judicial seizure are not the same legal measure. The basis of the measure and the authority that applied it must be determined from the file.
Seizure and return to the victim
During the suspension period, the benefit subject to the offence may be seized by court order or, where delay would be prejudicial, by the prosecutor's written order. A seizure carried out without a court order is submitted for approval within twenty-four hours; if the judge does not announce a decision within forty-eight hours of the seizure, the seizure lapses automatically. The special conditions of this article must not be confused with other seizure procedures.
If the property subject to the offence is found to belong to the victim, its return may come up during the investigation or prosecution. However, applying the measure is not a final finding that the account holder took part in the fraud. Which amount in the account is linked to which event, and the effect on unrelated assets, must be examined separately. The right to object to search and seizure should be assessed together with this distinction. For further information on this subject, see the right to complain and the offence of defamation.
Compensation for damage and legal consequences
Effective repentance and the defence of innocence
The conditions of effective repentance under TCK Article 168 may be examined in fraud files with regard to timing, voluntary compensation and the other requirements. Paying compensation does not in every case amount to an admission that the offence was committed, nor does it mean automatic acquittal. By whom, for what purpose and at what stage the payment was made must be documented.
The primary defence that there was no intent can be clearly separated from the alternative requests for favourable provisions that could apply in the event of conviction. This prevents a request for reduction from appearing to replace a plea of insufficient evidence. Special conditions, such as partial payment and the victim's consent, must also be assessed according to the concrete case.
Criminal liability and other disputes
The assessment in a criminal case does not automatically resolve all problems concerning bank transactions or private-law liability. An acquittal for an offence may not remove every contractual or property dispute. Conversely, the existence of a money transfer alone should not be regarded as sufficient for a fraud conviction.
The defence must centre on the act attributed to the person, its connection with the offence and the mental element. Explaining how the account was used, requesting exculpatory records in time and correctly applying the new legal provisions ensure that the file is properly evaluated.
Conclusion
Using a bank account in fraud calls for an examination of intent and participation specific to each person. Account ownership, transaction authority, communication records and the flow of money must be assessed together. The new reduction provision in TCK Article 158/4 can likewise be applied only within its own conditions. An effective defence supports a general statement such as "I lent my account" with concrete evidence and openly addresses adverse facts and the limits of the actual decisions.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement processes, you may review our criminal defence services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it enough that money arrived in my account for me to be considered guilty?
Account ownership alone does not show that a person knowingly took part in fraud. The elements of the offence and the person's own contribution must be proven together with the other evidence.
Is giving my friend an IBAN always a crime?
No. The purpose for which the account was used and the person's knowledge and will connected with the offence are examined. A friendship is not, on its own, a guarantee of non-liability either.
I took no commission; can I still be held responsible?
Not receiving any benefit may be an important fact, but it does not by itself decide the outcome. Knowing participation for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for another person is also assessed.
Does TCK Article 158/4 halve the penalty of every account holder?
No. The offence and the participation must first be proven; then it must be examined whether the contribution is limited to the giving act stated in the provision and whether the other conditions are met.
Can the new provision be applied to old convictions?
The principle of the more lenient law may be assessed. The effect of the old and new provisions on the concrete outcome must be compared, and in finalised files the appropriate adaptation route must be used.
What can I do if I cannot obtain the ATM footage myself?
The request may be made to the investigating or trial authority, stating the location, the time range and the effect the record would have on the defence. The AYM's Halil Akkaya decision shows the importance of favourable evidence that requires State assistance.
Does suspension of the account mean a conviction?
No. The temporary measure under Article 128/A CMK and the proof of the offence at the end of the trial are different things. The lifting of the measure and the routes of application against the seizure are assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Articles 7, 20–21, 37–40, 157–158 and 168; TCK Article 158/4 added by Article 13 of Law No. 7589. Current text checked: October 12, 2026.
2. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Articles 128/A, 160, 206–217, 223 and 230. Current text checked: October 12, 2026.
3. Constitutional Court (AYM), Halil Akkaya, Application No. 2021/2754, June 7, 2023, in particular §§ 25–29 and the operative part.
4. Court of Cassation 11th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), January 19, 2026, E.2025/4380, K.2026/647 — full text available in a transcript, section B/6 and the operative part. The transcript was used with the request and the rejection outcome kept separate.
5. Nurullah Kantarcı, Banka Hesabının Kullandırılması Suretiyle Dolandırıcılık Suçuna İştirak, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal (Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 8(2), 2025, pp. 497–539, in particular pp. 504–505 and 532–534; DOI: 10.51120/NEUHFD.2025.159. This study was used for the discussion that preceded the 2026 amendment.