Asset Seizure and Appointment of a Trustee During a Criminal Investigation: Conditions, Powers, Objection and Lifting

Seizure, Trusteeship, Freezing and Confiscation Are Not the Same Institution

In a criminal file the expressions "account block," "measure on assets," "trustee for the company" or "freezing of assets" may be used, but the legal basis may not be the same. The first thing to do is to determine which statutory provision the decision is based on.

What is decisive is not the name of the measure but the legal basis of the decision. A temporary block placed by a bank under its own internal controls, a CMK Article 128 seizure, a CMK Article 128/A suspension and the freezing of assets under Law No. 6415 are not subject to the same procedure.

Conditions for Seizure of Assets Under CMK Article 128

CMK Article 128 regulates the special measure of seizure directed at real estate, bank accounts, vehicles, rights and receivables and other assets. For this measure to be applied, the conditions in the statute must be present together.

The investigated offense must be in the catalog

CMK Article 128 cannot be applied to every offense. The Article establishes a limited catalog: from the Turkish Penal Code, genocide and crimes against humanity, migrant smuggling, human trafficking, trafficking in organs or tissue, theft, robbery, breach of trust, fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, drug trafficking, counterfeiting of currency, certain organization offenses, bid rigging and rigging of the performance of an obligation, usury, embezzlement, extortion by a public official (irtikâp), bribery, offenses against state security and the constitutional order, and offenses against state secrets; in addition, arms smuggling, banking embezzlement, smuggling offenses requiring imprisonment and certain offenses concerning cultural property.

If the alleged offense is not in the catalog, CMK Article 128 cannot be applied merely because the offense is serious or has a financial aspect. However, if the conditions of CMK Article 123, of a special statute or of another protective measure are met in the same event, those may be assessed separately.

There must be strong suspicion based on concrete evidence that the offense was committed

The first axis of suspicion concerns the commission of the offense under investigation or prosecution. An abstract report, an assumption, the legal characterization of the offense or company partnership alone should not be regarded as sufficient for this serious interference.

The decision must explain which concrete transaction, document, financial movement, communication record or other piece of evidence constitutes the strong suspicion. Not all of the evidence may be explained in detail because of confidentiality; however, a reasoning that can be reviewed is mandatory.

Strong suspicion based on concrete evidence is also required that the asset was obtained from the offense

Two separate connections must be established for CMK Article 128:

• Concrete evidence that the catalog offense was committed,
• Concrete evidence that the seized asset was obtained from that offense.

Placing a measure collectively on all assets owned by the suspect or defendant, without any analysis of the acquisition date, the source of financing or the link to the offense, gives rise to serious objections in terms of legality, reasoning and proportionality.

Factors such as the asset having been acquired before the date of the offense, legitimate income and payment documents, inheritance, a loan, a sale, company earnings or third-party financing are important in determining whether the link of having been obtained from the offense can be established. On the other hand, the acquisition date alone does not produce a conclusive result; if there is an allegation of simulation (muvazaa), substitute value or conversion of the proceeds of the offense into another asset, that allegation must also be made concrete.

The asset must belong to the suspect or defendant

The asset listed in CMK Article 128 must belong to the suspect or defendant. The statute also permits seizure where this asset is in the possession of another person. However, being in the possession of another person and belonging to another person are not the same thing.

If it is alleged that an asset registered in the name of a spouse, a family member, a company partner or a third party in fact belongs to the suspect or defendant, the relationship between the apparent registration and actual ownership must be shown with concrete evidence. The third party's claim to be a good-faith and genuine rights holder must be examined separately.

The asset must be specifically identified

The decision should not be content with an indefinite and unlimited expression such as "all of the suspect's assets." The real estate, account, vehicle, share, receivable or other asset should be identified, as far as possible, by distinguishing details such as the register, account, plate, company and share ratio.

The requirement of specificity matters for the correct implementation of the decision, for review of the link to the offense, for the protection of third-party rights and for preventing the measure from expanding beyond what is necessary.

A report from the competent institution must be obtained

For a seizure decision to be made under CMK Article 128, a report on the value obtained from the offense is obtained, as relevant, from BDDK, SPK, MASAK, the competent unit in the Treasury field, or the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority.

The statute provides a three-month period for the report and, where special reasons make it necessary, an additional two-month period upon request. The report should not consist merely of a concluding sentence; it must explain, in a reviewable way, the source of acquisition of the asset, the dates of transactions, company or account links and the allegation that it was obtained from the offense.

CMK Article 128/A specifically provides that no report requirement applies. This provision does not mean that a report is unnecessary for Article 128; the two Articles are separate regimes.

Only a judge can make a decision under CMK Article 128

CMK Article 128/9 expressly provides that only a judge may decide on seizure under this Article and on the appointment of a trustee under Article 128/10. During the investigation phase, the public prosecutor has no authority to issue a direct seizure or asset-management trustee decision under CMK Article 128.

This special rule departs from the general seizure procedure in CMK Article 127. Confusing general seizure with CMK Article 128 in a decision may give rise to an objection on the legal basis and on authority.

The measure must be proportionate

The existence of the statutory conditions does not automatically justify interfering with every asset by the most severe method. The measure must be:

• Suitable for the purpose,
• Necessary, because the same purpose cannot be achieved by a lighter means,
• Proportionate to the extent of striking a fair balance between the public interest and the right to property.

Lighter options should be assessed in the specific case, such as an annotation in the register for real estate and vehicles, limiting only the suspected amount in a bank account, seizing a specific share instead of the whole company, or a supervisory trustee instead of a complete transfer of management.

Which Assets Can Be Seized Under CMK Article 128?

Real estate

A seizure decision on real estate is carried out by an annotation in the land registry. The property may remain in the actual use of the suspect; however, sale, transfer, mortgage and other dispositions are restricted according to the scope of the decision.

If a specific share or a specific independent unit of the property, rather than the whole, is connected with the offense, limiting the scope of the measure to that asset may be raised in terms of proportionality.

Land, sea and air vehicles

A decision on vehicles is applied by an annotation in the relevant register. Whether the vehicle must in fact be placed in custody, loss of value, maintenance costs and the nature of the link to the offense must also be assessed separately.

Accounts in banks and other financial institutions

A decision to seize an account is immediately notified to the bank or financial institution by technical means of communication and is also served separately. Account transactions after the decision that are aimed at defeating the decision are invalid.

In practice, the following distinctions are important:

• The existing balance on the date of the decision and amounts that arrive in the account later,
• Salary, alimony, social assistance or amounts belonging to third parties,
• Joint accounts,
• A company account and a partner's personal account,
• The amount alleged to be connected with the offense and the account as a whole,
• Whether the account is closed only to outgoing transactions or to all movements.

If this scope is not clear in the text of the decision and in the practice of the institution, a request for clarification and partial lifting may arise.

Rights and receivables

A rent receivable, a receivable arising from a contract, a dividend from a company, an insurance receivable or another right may be assessed under CMK Article 128. The decision is carried out by notifying the relevant natural or legal person by technical means and also serving it separately.

Company shares

Seizure of a shareholding of the suspect or defendant in a company in which they are a partner does not mean seizure of the whole company or the appointment of a trustee to the company's management. The decision to seize the share is notified to the company management and to the trade registry directorate.

This distinction is critical for the defense:

• Seizure of the share restricts the transfer of the shareholding and its economic consequences.
• CMK Article 133 trusteeship affects the decisions and transactions of company management.
• CMK Article 128/10 trusteeship manages the specific seized asset.

These measures may coexist in the same file; however, the statutory conditions for each must be shown separately.

Safe deposit boxes and other assets

The contents of a safe deposit box, negotiable instruments and other assets with economic value may also be within the scope. The expression "other assets" is not an unlimited power; the asset must be identified specifically, must belong to the suspect or defendant, and the link of having been obtained from the offense must be shown.

CMK Article 128/A: Suspension of Accounts in Cybercrimes Is a Separate Regime

CMK Article 128/A, added by Law No. 7571 of December 24, 2025, is not a general "urgent application" of CMK Article 128. It is a new and rapid system specific to certain offenses committed through computer systems.

In which offenses does it apply?

The Article applies to:

• Aggravated theft committed through the use of computer systems,
• Certain cases of aggravated fraud in which a computer system, bank or credit institution is used as a tool,
• Misuse of bank or credit cards.

A financial institution may suspend an account for up to forty-eight hours

If there is reasonable suspicion that an offense has been committed, a bank, payment service provider or crypto-asset service provider may suspend the account concerned in the transaction for up to forty-eight hours. The transaction and account movements are notified immediately to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor, and the suspension is notified to the account holder.

The account holder may apply to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor with a request for lifting; the public prosecutor decides on this request within twenty-four hours.

Seizure and judicial approval

The proceeds of the offense in the suspended account may be seized by a judge's decision or, where delay would be prejudicial, by the written order of the public prosecutor. A seizure made by the prosecutor's order is submitted for judicial approval within twenty-four hours; if the judge does not decide within forty-eight hours of the seizure, the measure lapses automatically.

This special Article does not require the institutional report required by CMK Article 128. Which Article applies therefore directly changes the degree of suspicion, the time limits, the decision-making authority and the report requirement.

Asset-Management Trustee Under CMK Article 128/10

If the administration of real estate, rights and receivables seized under CMK Article 128 is necessary, a trustee may be appointed to manage those assets. In this case the provisions of CMK Article 133 apply by analogy.

The subject of the trusteeship is a specific asset, not the company

An asset-management trustee is appointed not to replace the company's organs directly, but to protect and manage the economic value of the seized real estate, right or receivable.

For example, needs such as the following may arise:

• Collecting the rents of income-producing real estate,
• Pursuing a receivable when it falls due,
• Preventing loss of value of an asset that is being operated,
• Meeting maintenance, tax and mandatory expenses,
• Carrying out the administrative transactions of a seized share or right.

The mere existence of a seizure is not sufficient for a trustee

For the appointment of a trustee, the asset must truly need to be managed. If mere protection can be achieved by an annotation in the register or a simple custody measure, the necessity of appointing a trustee in addition must be made concrete.

Only a judge decides

Under CMK Article 128/9, only a judge may decide on the Article 128/10 trusteeship. The public prosecutor cannot appoint a trustee. The limits of the trustee's authority, the asset to be managed and the transactions that may be performed must be clearly shown in the decision.

Appointment of a Trustee to Company Management Under CMK Article 133

Appointing a trustee to company management is a more serious measure than merely imposing a prohibition on disposition over assets. The decision may affect the company's daily operations, its management bodies, its employees, its partners, its creditors and its contracts.

The offense must be being committed within the scope of the company's activity

CMK Article 133 does not regard a suspect or defendant being a partner or manager in a company as sufficient on its own. There must be strong suspicion that the offense is being committed within the scope of the company's activity.

The connection between the company and the offense may be investigated through facts such as:

• Use of company accounts to transfer or conceal the proceeds of the offense,
• Fictitious invoices, sham contracts or apparent commercial transactions,
• Organized participation of company personnel or management in the offense,
• Allocation of company assets to the commission of the offense,
• The company departing from its ordinary activity and becoming a tool of criminal activity.

A partner's personal act and the company's corporate activity must be distinguished from each other.

Grounds of strong suspicion must exist

The statute requires grounds of strong suspicion concerning the connection of the company's activity with the offense. The decision should not merely repeat the heading of the accusation; it must explain which transaction, account, record or management decision of the company is thought to be part of the criminal activity.

The trustee must be necessary to uncover the material truth

One of the most important conditions distinguishing CMK Article 133 from CMK Article 128 is that the appointment of a trustee must be necessary to uncover the material truth.

If it is possible to reach company records through an expert examination, preservation of documents, seizure of a specific account, an annotation on shares or a supervisory trustee, why a complete transfer of management powers is mandatory must be explained separately.

There is a catalog offense requirement

CMK Article 133 may be applied for migrant smuggling and human trafficking, drug trafficking, counterfeiting of currency, prostitution, providing a place for gambling, embezzlement, laundering of assets derived from an offense, armed organization and supplying arms to an organization, offenses against state secrets and espionage, and arms smuggling, banking embezzlement, certain smuggling and cultural property offenses separately listed in the statute.

The catalogs of CMK Articles 128 and 133 are not entirely the same. The alleged offense must be checked separately for each Article.

A judge decides during the investigation, the court during the prosecution

The appointment of a trustee to company management is decided by a judge in the investigation phase and by the court hearing the case in the prosecution phase. The public prosecutor cannot directly appoint a trustee.

It is not sufficient for the decision merely to say "a trustee is appointed." It must be clearly shown which powers of the management body are restricted or pass to the trustee.

The Difference Between a Supervisory Trustee and a Management Trustee

CMK Article 133 allows for trusteeship at two different levels of intensity.

Supervisory or approval trustee

The company's existing management body continues in office; however, the validity of its decisions and transactions is made subject to the trustee's approval. This model is a lighter tool in terms of:

• Preserving the company's institutional memory,
• Not interrupting commercial activity,
• Less interference with the partners' right to manage,
• Controlling transactions that carry a risk of the offense or of tampering with evidence.

Transfer of management powers to the trustee

The decision may give the trustee the powers of the management body, or those powers together with the authority to administer the shares or securities of the partners entirely. In that case the company's current managers lose the authority to represent and administer the company according to the scope of the decision.

A management trusteeship is the most severe form of interference. For this reason, the following must be explained in the decision and in later reviews:

• Why a supervisory trustee is insufficient,
• Which management power creates a risk of the offense or of evidence,
• How the company's activity will continue,
• How employees, creditors and good-faith partners will be protected.

Announcement of the decision in the trade registry

The decision on the appointment of a trustee is announced in the Turkish Trade Registry Gazette and by other appropriate means. The announcement is important so that third parties can correctly assess the authority to represent, the signature arrangements and the legal situation of the company.

In Which Cases Can the TMSF Be Appointed as Trustee?

Provisional Article 2 was added to Law No. 7145 by Law No. 7539, published in the Official Gazette dated February 4, 2025, No. 32803.

A court must first decide to appoint a trustee

The TMSF becoming a trustee under this special regime is not an automatic, administrative first step. First:

• There must be strong suspicion that an offense under TCK Article 282, 314 or 315 or under Article 4 of Law No. 6415 has been committed,
• A court must have decided, under CMK Article 133, to appoint a trustee to the company, or, under CMK Article 128/10, to an asset.

When these conditions are met, the TMSF may be appointed as trustee within a five-year period from the date of entry into force of Provisional Article 2.

The TMSF's powers are broad

Under the special regulation:

• The rights and powers granted to the TMSF in the Banking Law may be applied by analogy,
• The companies' general assembly powers may be exercised by the TMSF,
• The company and assets may be managed by managers appointed under the TMSF's supervision,
• The sale, dissolution and liquidation of the company or assets, in whole or in part, may be decided under the conditions in the Law,
• The consent of minority shareholders may not be required in a sale or liquidation.

These powers require reasoning, proportionality and effective judicial review in terms of the temporary nature of the measure and of ownership and partnership rights.

With transfer to the TMSF, CMK Article 128 measures lift automatically

Seizure and measure decisions under CMK Article 128 on companies, real estate, rights, assets and receivables for which the appointment of the TMSF as trustee has been decided lift automatically upon the transfer of trustee authority to the TMSF.

This provision does not mean that the assets are entirely free. Management and disposition pass to the TMSF trusteeship regime.

Special jurisdiction rule against decisions and transactions of the TMSF

Provisional Article 2/3 of Law No. 7145 provides that actions against the TMSF's decisions and transactions within the scope of its trusteeship duty are heard by the administrative courts at the place where the TMSF headquarters is located.

On the other hand:

• Initial trustee appointment and continuation decisions fall within the field of the criminal judge or court,
• Private-law transactions performed on behalf of the company by an ordinary judicial trustee are assessed within the framework of CMK Article 133/3 and private-law rules,
• The special administrative-jurisdiction rule applies to the TMSF's decisions and transactions under the special regime of 2025.

The competent jurisdiction should not be chosen without determining the authority that performed the act and the legal nature of the act.

How Is a Trustee Decision or Seizure Objected To?

The general objection period is two weeks

Under CMK Article 268, unless there is a special period in the statute, an objection to a judge's or court's decision is submitted to the authority that issued the decision within two weeks from the day the person concerned learns of the decision.

If the authority receiving the objection does not correct its decision, it sends the file to the competent objection authority within three days at most.

The date of learning or service of the decision, the UYAP record, notification to defense counsel and, if any, the trade registry announcement should be examined together. The last day of the period, holidays and the conditions for restoration of the previous state (eski hâle getirme) are assessed separately according to the specific file.

An objection does not by itself stop the measure

As a rule, an objection does not automatically stop the seizure or trustee decision. A request to suspend the implementation or to narrow its scope must be made separately and with reasons.

What can be raised in an objection?

• The alleged offense is not in the catalog,
• Insufficiency of concrete evidence that the offense was committed,
• Failure to establish that the asset was obtained from the offense,
• Absence or insufficiency of the mandatory institutional report,
• The asset does not belong to the suspect or defendant,
• The decision is indefinite and its scope unlimited,
• The decision was made by an authority without competence,
• Failure to establish a link between the company's activity and the offense,
• The trustee is not necessary to uncover the material truth,
• A supervisory trustee or a lighter measure would be sufficient,
• The measure disproportionately harms the company and third parties,
• The ground for the measure has disappeared because of new evidence or changed conditions.

The objection petition should not merely list statutory Articles; it must contain a separate factual and financial analysis for each asset and each company.

Can the Measure Be Requested to Be Lifted or Narrowed?

Yes. Protective measures are not final judgments; when their conditions disappear, they must be lifted or made lighter.

Return of the seizure can be requested under CMK Article 131

When it becomes clear that there is no longer a need to preserve an item or asset belonging to the suspect, defendant or a third party, or that it will not be subject to confiscation, the public prosecutor in the investigation phase, the judge, or the court in the prosecution may decide on return. An objection can be made to a decision of refusal.

Although for CMK Article 128 the seizure decision is made by a judge, the nature of the request for return and lifting and the current stage of the proceedings should be assessed together.

The prosecutor cannot lift a trustee measure on their own

In its decision of December 31, 2018, E.2018/5333, K.2018/5602, the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 16. Ceza Dairesi) held that the authority to lift a trustee measure under CMK Article 133 belongs not to the public prosecutor but to the judge or court that decided on the measure.

A decision of non-prosecution (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı) shows that the investigative ground requiring the measure has ended; even so, a decision by the competent judge or court is required for the measure to be legally terminated.

Gradual request strategy

Rather than limiting oneself to a request for "complete lifting" alone in a specific file, alternative and gradual requests may be considered:

1. Complete lifting of the measure,
2. Partial lifting for assets whose link to the offense cannot be established,
3. Release of the part of the account beyond a specific amount,
4. Conversion of the company management trustee into a supervisory trustee,
5. Seizure only of the shares belonging to the suspect instead of the whole company,
6. Permission to use funds for wages, taxes, social security, rent and mandatory operating expenses,
7. Permission for activity with the trustee's approval for specific transactions.

Each of these requests must be supported by account statements, financial statements, contracts, payroll, tax records and other concrete documents.

How Long Can the Measure Last?

For CMK Articles 128 and 133 there is no clear general provision, as there is for pretrial detention, that provides for automatic review every thirty days. This does not mean that the measure may continue indefinitely and without reasons.

Public authorities must act promptly and diligently

According to the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), public authorities must act promptly and diligently in protective measures that interfere with the right to property. The complexity of the investigation, international financial movements and the number of companies may explain why the review takes time; however, current necessity and proportionality must be reviewed for each period that passes.

A long duration alone does not produce a violation; however, uncertainty and lack of reasons matter

In some complex files, the Constitutional Court has not found long-term trusteeship contrary to the right to property because of the existence of concrete reasons, the examination of objections and the regular assessment of the measure. In the application of Betül Özbey Bayındır, the Plenary Assembly decided that there was no violation when the structure of the companies, the nature of the accusation, the complexity of the proceedings and the judicial review of the measure were assessed together.

On the other hand, the following have led to a finding of violation of the right to property in various decisions of the Constitutional Court:

• Failure to explain why the measure is still needed,
• Continuation of the measure although confiscation has not been ordered,
• Seizure continuing indefinitely beyond eight or nine years,
• Rejection of requests for lifting with stereotyped reasoning,
• Failure to consider a lighter means.

A finding of violation does not always lift the measure directly

When the Constitutional Court finds a violation because of a long-lasting measure, it does not decide in every case to lift the seizure directly. In some applications it has provided redress through non-pecuniary compensation and left the task of assessing the current conditions of the measure to the lower courts.

For this reason, in addition to a constitutional complaint, the ordinary objection and lifting routes within the file must also be pursued with concrete and current reasons for the lifting of the measure.

Rights of Third Parties, Spouses and Company Partners

A third party must document their own ownership

Being the spouse, relative, partner or commercial counterparty of the suspect or defendant is not sufficient on its own for seizure of assets. A third party may demonstrate genuine entitlement by submitting:

• Title deed and registry records,
• The date of acquisition,
• The source of payment,
• Loan and bank documents,
• Tax and commercial records,
• The transfer agreement,
• Records of actual use and income.

If the prosecuting authority alleges that the transfer or ownership is a simulation (muvazaa), it must support this allegation with concrete facts.

A company and a partner are separate legal persons

The company's assets and the partner's personal assets must not be confused. A partner's personal offense does not automatically establish the link of the company's activity to the offense; nor does a measure on the company automatically apply to all of the partner's personal rights.

The Constitutional Court emphasizes that, in interferences directed at the legal personality of a company, a partner or manager does not in every case have direct victim status, and that it must be determined whose right the application concerns and on the basis of what authority of representation it has been made.

Good-faith shareholders and creditors must be protected

In trustee and confiscation proceedings, the rights of good-faith partners who did not participate in the offense, of company creditors, of employees and of contracting parties must be taken into account. The decision of the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Ceza Dairesi), E.2021/2528, K.2023/182, shows that the type of trusteeship, the shares belonging to the defendant and the rights of good-faith third parties must be separated at the confiscation stage.

Which Court Should Be Applied to Against the Trustee's Transactions?

Private-law transactions of an ordinary CMK Article 133 trustee

CMK Article 133/3 provides that interested persons may apply to the competent court against the trustee's transactions in accordance with the Turkish Civil Code and the Turkish Commercial Code.

For acts of the trustee such as:

• Terminating the company agreement,
• Selling or leasing property,
• General assembly or management decisions,
• Partnership and representation transactions,
• Management of commercial debts and receivables,

a civil or commercial court may come into question, depending on the nature of the dispute.

In its decision E.2022/4697, K.2022/4805, the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 13. Daire) held that transactions performed by a judicial trustee on the basis of commercial rules and customs cannot be regarded as administrative acts and do not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.

Transactions of the TMSF under Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 7145

The special regulation of 2025 expressly provides that actions against the TMSF's decisions and transactions within the scope of its trusteeship duty are heard by the administrative courts at the place where the TMSF headquarters is located.

Therefore, the commercial transactions of an ordinary judicial trustee and the TMSF's special trusteeship decisions and transactions under Provisional Article 2 are not subject to the same jurisdiction rule.

Review of the initial trustee appointment decision lies with the criminal courts

The initial protective measure decision on the appointment of a trustee to a company or an asset is issued by a judge or court within criminal procedure and is subject to objection under the CMK. That a later trustee transaction may be a matter for private-law or administrative jurisdiction does not remove the authority of the criminal judge who issued the initial measure decision.

Trustee's Fee, Company Expenses and Continuation of Activity

As a rule, the trustee's fee is paid from the company's budget. However, if a decision of non-prosecution or an acquittal is rendered at the end of the investigation or prosecution, the whole of the trustee's fee paid from the company's budget is covered by the State Treasury together with statutory interest.

During the trusteeship, the company's following items must be protected:

• Employee wages and social security premiums,
• Tax and public debts,
• Rent and energy expenses,
• Credit and collateral obligations,
• Ongoing contracts,
• Lawsuits and enforcement proceedings,
• Trade secrets and personal data,
• Licenses and permits.

The trustee is not an undercover investigator of the criminal investigation. The trustee must manage the company lawfully and in a way that protects its economic value; evidence-gathering transactions must be carried out within the framework of the competent authorities and procedures in the CMK.

Compensation for an Unjust or Disproportionate Measure

Seizure although the conditions were not met

CMK Article 141/1-j provides that pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages may be claimed from the State where items or other assets were seized although the conditions were not met, where the measures necessary to protect them were not taken, where they were used for a purpose other than their purpose, or where they were not returned in time.

Compensation period

Under CMK Article 142, the claim must be made:

• Within three months from notification to the person concerned that the decision or judgment has become final,
• In any case, within one year following the date it became final.

As a rule, the competent court is the High Criminal Court of the place where the injured person resides; the special jurisdiction and referral rules in the statute must also be checked separately.

Damage arising from the trustee's transactions

CMK Article 133/5 provides that compensation actions arising from the trustee's work and transactions relating to their duties are brought against the State under CMK Articles 142–144. The State may have recourse against a trustee who abuses their duty by acting contrary to the requirements of the duty.

In a compensation claim, the following must be documented:

• The legal basis of the measure,
• The lifting or acquittal/non-prosecution decision,
• Loss of the company's value,
• Funds that could not be used and the cost of financing,
• The trustee's fee,
• Contract losses,
• Tax and interest burden,
• Direct causal link.

Limits of Public Articles and Statements on an Ongoing Investigation

An article that explains legal institutions in general terms may be published. By contrast, when making a public statement about a specific ongoing investigation, the following must be taken into account:

• Confidentiality of the investigation,
• Presumption of innocence,
• Personal data,
• Trade secrets and banking information,
• Company reputation,
• Safety of witnesses and other persons,
• The procedure for discussing evidence,
• Protection of the defense strategy.

The names of suspects, companies or third parties; account movements; confidential annexes to decisions; digital records and witness statements not yet discussed in the file must not be carried into a public article. General legal publication and defense in a specific file must be kept separate.

First Checklist When a Seizure and Trustee Decision Is Learned

Identity of the decision

• The authority that issued the decision,
• Date and number of the decision,
• Investigation or case number,
• Basis Article,
• Date of service or learning,
• Notice of the legal remedy.

Substantive conditions

• Is the alleged offense in the catalog?
• What facts have been shown as concrete evidence?
• Has a link been established between the offense and the asset or the company's activity?
• Whom does the asset belong to?
• What are the source and date of acquisition?
• Is the decision specific and limited?
• Is there an institutional report, and what data is it based on?

Necessity and proportionality

• Would a lighter measure have been sufficient?
• Is it possible to seize the shares instead of the whole company?
• Is a supervisory trustee sufficient instead of a management trustee?
• Can a specific amount be restricted instead of the whole account?
• How will mandatory living and operating expenses be met?
• Have third-party rights been assessed?

Application and evidence plan

• The two-week objection period,
• A separate request for lifting or return,
• Documents of acquisition of the assets,
• Bank and accounting records,
• Trade registry and company decisions,
• Invoices and contracts,
• Tax and social security documents,
• Current financial statements and cash flow,
• Effects on employees and creditors.

Strategic Structure of Requests in the Objection Petition

An objection or lifting request varies according to the specific file; the following order may nevertheless be considered:

1. First, complete lifting of the measure.
2. If this is not accepted, partial lifting for assets whose link to the offense cannot be established.
3. Conversion of the management trusteeship into a supervisory trusteeship.
4. Limiting the measure to only the shares belonging to the suspect or defendant instead of the whole company.
5. Release of amounts in the account that have no relation to the offense.
6. Permission for wages, taxes, social security, rent, credit and mandatory operating expenses.
7. Re-examination of the measure at regular intervals with concrete reasons.
8. Making the institutional report and the underlying financial records available for review by the defense.

Each of these requests must be made by explaining which damage and which evidence it is based on.

Common Mistakes

Assuming that CMK Article 127 and CMK Article 128 are subject to the same procedure

Under CMK Article 128, only a judge is competent for seizure and for the Article 128/10 trusteeship; the urgent prosecutor's order available in general seizure cannot be carried over automatically to this Article.

Treating all assets as proceeds of the offense

The source of acquisition and the link to the offense must be shown separately for each asset.

Applying CMK Article 128/A as a general urgent route of Article 128

CMK Article 128/A is a special regime only for the offenses committed through computer systems and the accounts specified in the statute.

Confusing seizure of a company share with a trustee for company management

A measure on a share targets the partnership right; Article 133 trusteeship targets company management. Their conditions and consequences are different.

Requesting or applying a management trusteeship directly

If the purpose can be achieved with a supervisory trustee, a complete transfer of management powers may be disproportionate.

Assuming that the prosecutor can lift a trustee measure

The authority to lift a CMK Article 133 trusteeship belongs to the judge or court that decided on the measure.

Thinking that an objection automatically stops the measure

As a rule, an objection does not by itself stop implementation; suspension or partial release must be requested separately.

Assuming that a company partner can make every application on behalf of the company

The company's legal personality, authority of representation and direct victimhood are examined separately.

Thinking that the TMSF steps in automatically in every trustee decision

The TMSF's 2025 special regime can be applied only for certain offenses and where a court has decided on a CMK Article 128/10 or Article 133 trusteeship.

Conclusion

Seizure of assets and appointment of a trustee during an ongoing criminal investigation have very serious consequences for ownership and company management before any final judgment exists. For this reason, it is not sufficient for a decision to rest only on "the seriousness of the investigation" or on general suspicion of an offense.

Under CMK Article 128, the catalog offense, strong suspicion based on concrete evidence, the link of having been obtained from the offense, a specific asset, an institutional report and a judge's decision must exist together. Under CMK Article 133, in addition to these, strong suspicion that the offense was committed within the scope of the company's activity and the necessity of the trustee to uncover the material truth are required. A management trusteeship is more severe than a supervisory trusteeship, and why it is mandatory must be separately reasoned.

An application against the decision is not limited to the first objection. Depending on changed conditions, full or partial lifting, conversion to a supervisory trusteeship, permission for mandatory expenses, a third party's ownership claim, the private-law or administrative-jurisdiction route against the trustee's transactions and, once the conditions are met, compensation against the State must be assessed together.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is seizure of assets a penalty or confiscation?

No. Seizure is a temporary protective measure. Confiscation is, as a rule, a security measure of a final nature imposed by the court at the end of the proceedings.

Can a prosecutor seize an account under CMK Article 128?

Under CMK Article 128/9, only a judge may decide on seizure under this Article. Under the special cybercrime regime in CMK Article 128/A, by contrast, where delay would be prejudicial the prosecutor may issue a written order; this order is submitted for judicial approval within twenty-four hours.

Is a report from MASAK or another institution mandatory for CMK Article 128?

The statute provides for a report on the value obtained from the offense to be obtained, as relevant, from BDDK, SPK, MASAK, the competent unit in the Treasury field or KGK. In CMK Article 128/A this report requirement is expressly not sought.

Can the assets of a spouse or relative be seized?

Being a spouse or relative is not sufficient. It must be shown with concrete evidence that the asset in fact belongs to the suspect or defendant, or that the conditions of another measure in the statute have been met.

Does seizure of a company share mean the appointment of a trustee to company management?

No. Seizure of a share falls under CMK Article 128; a trustee for company management falls under CMK Article 133. Their conditions and effects are different.

What is the difference between a supervisory trustee and a management trustee?

With a supervisory trustee, the existing management continues in office and its decisions are made subject to the trustee's approval. With a management trustee, management powers pass to the trustee in part or in whole.

Can the TMSF be appointed trustee to any company?

No. Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 7145 can be applied for offenses under TCK Articles 282, 314, 315 or Article 4 of Law No. 6415, where a court has decided on a trusteeship under CMK Article 133 or Article 128/10.

How many days is the period for objecting to a trustee decision?

Unless the statute provides a special period, it is two weeks from the date of learning of the decision, under CMK Article 268.

Does an objection automatically stop the decision?

As a rule, no. Suspension of the implementation of the measure or narrowing of its scope must be requested separately.

If a decision of non-prosecution is issued, does the trusteeship end automatically?

The ground for the measure disappears; however, according to the approach of the Court of Cassation, the judge or court that issued the trustee decision must issue a decision ending the measure. The public prosecutor cannot lift a trustee measure on their own.

Can the company continue its activity during the trusteeship?

Yes. One of the trustee's basic duties is to protect the company's value and legal activity. Depending on the scope of the measure, wage, tax, rent, credit and contract transactions may be carried out by the trustee or through the relevant permission mechanism.

How is a sale or contract made by the trustee objected to?

For private-law transactions of an ordinary CMK Article 133 trustee, the competent civil or commercial court; for the TMSF's decisions and transactions under Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 7145, the administrative court at the place where the TMSF headquarters is located may come into question. The competent court must not be chosen without determining the nature of the transaction.

Can the Constitutional Court be applied to if the measure lasts a long time?

After ordinary remedies are exhausted, failure to examine the current necessity of the measure, its disproportionate scope or its unreasonable duration may be the subject of an individual application on the right to property. Not every long measure is an automatic violation; the complexity of the file and judicial review are also assessed.

What is the compensation period for unjust seizure?

Under CMK Article 142, compensation may be claimed within three months from notification of finality and, in any case, within one year from finality.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular Articles 123, 127, 128, 128/A, 131, 132, 133, 141, 142 and 267–268.
• Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code, in particular Articles 54–55, 282, 314 and 315.
• Law No. 6415 on the Prevention of the Financing of Terrorism.
• Law No. 7145 on Amendments to Certain Laws and Decree-Laws, Provisional Article 2.
• Law No. 7539 on Amendments to Certain Laws, Official Gazette No. 32803 of February 4, 2025.
• Law No. 7571 on Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code and Certain Laws, amendment to CMK Article 128/A.
• Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code.
• Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code.

Selected case law

• Constitutional Court, Betül Özbey Bayındır, Application No. 2019/42188, July 31, 2025.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2020/31715, November 18, 2025.
• Constitutional Court, E.2018/77, K.2023/105, May 31, 2023.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2018/27526, September 14, 2023.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2019/24644, July 11, 2023.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2020/8417, September 6, 2023.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2018/1058, November 23, 2022.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2019/29200, June 28, 2022.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2018/18585, June 16, 2021.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2016/80432, November 12, 2019.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2016/54509, November 28, 2019.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2015/8867, February 21, 2019.
• Court of Cassation, 16th Criminal Chamber, E.2018/5333, K.2018/5602, December 31, 2018.
• Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E.2021/2528, K.2023/182, January 23, 2023.
• Council of State, 13th Chamber, E.2022/4697, K.2022/4805, December 15, 2022.
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 12th Civil Chamber, E.2022/2401, K.2023/1170, July 17, 2023.
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 13th Civil Chamber, E.2022/89, K.2022/93, January 27, 2022.

Academic sources

• Eşref Barış Börekçi, Appointment of a Trustee for Company Management in Joint-Stock and Limited Companies (Anonim ve Limited Şirketler Açısından Şirket Yönetimi İçin Kayyım Tayini), 2024.
• Mustafa Uğur Demiral, Appointment of a Trustee for Company Management (CMK Article 133) (Şirket Yönetimi İçin Kayyım Tayini (CMK m.133)), 2020.
• Ömer Özmen Baştürk, Seizure of Real Estate, Rights and Receivables in Criminal Procedure Law (CMK Article 128) (Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Taşınmazlara, Hak ve Alacaklara Elkoyma), 2025.
• Merve Selin Şohoğlu, The Principle of Proportionality in Criminal Procedure Law (Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Ölçülülük İlkesi), 2025.
• Aylin Şahin, Compensation for Protective Measures (Koruma Tedbirleri Nedeniyle Tazminat), 2026.
• Mehmet Saydam, "Evaluation of the Court of Cassation Decision on Lifting a Trustee Decision Issued Under CMK Article 133" (CMK m.133 Uyarınca Verilen Kayyım Kararının Kaldırılmasına İlişkin Yargıtay Kararının Değerlendirilmesi), 2023.