Asset Seizure in Criminal Investigations: CMK Article 128 Requirements, Bank Accounts, Real Estate and Lifting the Measure

What Is Asset Seizure under CMK Article 128?

Article 128 of the CMK is a protective measure that is more specific than the general seizure provisions and subject to heavier conditions. Under general seizure, values that are considered useful as evidence or that may be subject to confiscation of items or gains can be taken into custody. Article 128, by contrast, targets the allegation that registered or financial asset values such as real estate, bank accounts, vehicles, rights, receivables and company shares were obtained from the offense.

Seizure is provisional; confiscation is a final outcome

Seizure does not by itself transfer ownership of the asset to the State. Transfer, sale, withdrawal, remittance or other dispositions are restricted. Confiscation, on the other hand, is a security measure that, at the end of the trial, transfers to the State the ownership of items or gains for which the statutory conditions are met.

The purpose of seizure is to prevent transfers and dissipation that would render a confiscation order, if one is later issued, ineffective. For this reason, the measure should be applied only to values that may later be subject to confiscation. The Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 3rd Criminal Chamber's decision E.2023/16670, K.2025/6908 specifically emphasizes that items or shares belonging to a good-faith third party that cannot later be confiscated must be left outside the seizure.

CMK Article 128 and CMK Articles 123–127 are not the same procedure

Articles 123 and 127 of the CMK govern the general seizure regime. In cases where delay would be prejudicial, the public prosecutor and, under certain conditions, the senior law-enforcement officer may issue a written order. By contrast, Article 128(9) of the CMK provides that only a judge may decide on this special measure directed at real estate, accounts, rights and receivables.

This distinction matters in practice. If a decision subject to the conditions of Article 128 was nevertheless made by a prosecutor's order on the basis of the general seizure provision, an objection as to authority and procedure may arise.

CMK Article 128/A is a separate and narrow system

Article 128/A of the CMK, introduced by Law No. 7571 of December 24, 2025, is a system for temporarily suspending a bank, payment or crypto-asset account and seizing the benefit that is the object of the offense in the account, in respect of certain aggravated theft, aggravated fraud and misuse of bank or credit cards offenses committed through the use of information systems.

This article is not an "urgency exception" to the classic Article 128 of the CMK. The degree of suspicion, the scope of offenses, the institutional report, the deciding authority and the time limits are different.

Which Conditions Must Be Present Together for a CMK Article 128 Measure?

The conditions of Article 128 of the CMK are cumulative, not alternative. Each must be present and must be shown in the reasoning of the decision in a way that can be reviewed.

The offense under investigation or prosecution must be in the catalog

Article 128 of the CMK cannot be applied to every offense. The current catalog covers the following groups of offenses in the Turkish Penal Code and certain offenses under special laws:

• Genocide and crimes against humanity,
• Migrant smuggling, human trafficking, and trafficking in organs or tissues,
• Theft and robbery,
• Breach of trust and fraud,
• Fraudulent bankruptcy,
• Manufacture and trade of narcotic or stimulant substances,
• Counterfeiting of currency,
• The state of an armed organization under TCK Article 220/3,
• Bid rigging and rigging of the performance of an obligation,
• Usury,
• Embezzlement, extortion by a public official and bribery,
• Crimes against state security and the constitutional order,
• Crimes against state secrets and espionage,
• Arms smuggling under Law No. 6136,
• Embezzlement under Article 160 of the Banking Law No. 5411,
• Smuggling offenses defined in Law No. 5607 that require a prison sentence,
• Offenses in Articles 68 and 74 of Law No. 2863.

If the alleged act falls outside the catalog, neither its financial dimension nor the possibility of a future confiscation is sufficient on its own for Article 128 of the CMK. The conditions of another seizure provision may exist in the file; but the legal basis must be identified correctly.

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

The first axis of suspicion concerns the commission of the catalog offense. A report, the mere opening of an investigation or the seriousness of the name of the offense is not sufficient on its own. The decision must show which bank movement, contract, invoice, commercial record, communication record, witness statement or other evidence strengthens the suspicion of the offense.

The existence of a restriction order in the investigation file does not justify a measure decision with no reasoning at all. There must be a minimum factual framework that enables the defense to understand the basis of the measure and to develop an effective objection.

There must also be separate strong suspicion that the asset was obtained from this offense

This is the most critical condition of Article 128 of the CMK, and the one most often overlooked in practice. Strong suspicion that the suspect committed a catalog offense does not by itself show that all the assets he or she owns were obtained from the offense.

For each value, the following questions must be answered:

• When was the asset acquired?
• From which source was the acquisition price paid?
• What is the relationship between the alleged period of the offense and the date of acquisition?
• Which inflow or balance in the bank account is treated as proceeds of crime?
• Have lawful wages, commercial income, loans, inheritance, sale proceeds or prior savings been separated out?
• If the proceeds of crime were converted into another value, by which records is this conversion traced?
• What is the concrete basis for the allegation of a substitute value or a simulated transfer?

In the Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber's decision E.2023/16574, K.2025/16288, the lifting of a seizure over company shares was found correct because there was not enough concrete evidence that the asset values had been obtained from the offense.

The asset must belong to the suspect or defendant

Article 128 of the CMK targets asset values belonging to the suspect or defendant. The fact that a value is in the possession of another person does not bar seizure; however, possession and ownership are different things.

Where it is claimed that a value registered in the name of a spouse, a family member, a partner or another third party "in fact belongs to the suspect," the following must be shown with concrete evidence:

• The source of payment,
• The date of transfer,
• Actual use,
• Who benefited from the income and fruits,
• The economic capacity of the parties,
• The allegation of simulation or a sham transaction.

A relationship of kinship, marriage or partnership alone is not sufficient to interfere with a third party's assets.

The value to be seized must be specified concretely

The law speaks of asset values that are "determined concretely." The decision should, as far as possible, be limited by:

• Title deed block-parcel or independent unit details,
• Vehicle plate and registry,
• Bank and account/IBAN details,
• Company name, registry number and share ratio,
• The debtor and source of the receivable,
• The distinguishing details of the negotiable instruments

A general decision such as "all assets of the suspect" may be the subject of an objection on grounds of specificity and proportionality if the link of each value to the offense has not been shown.

A report on the value obtained from the offense must be obtained from the relevant institution

Article 128 of the CMK provides for obtaining a report on the value obtained from the offense from, as the case may be, BDDK, SPK, MASAK, the Treasury unit named in the statutory text, and the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority.

The report is prepared within three months at the most; where special reasons make it necessary, it may be extended by two more months upon request.

The report should explain in a way that can be reviewed:

• The accounts and periods examined,
• The source of acquisition of the assets,
• The transactions regarded as suspicious,
• Why lawful income was not considered sufficient,
• Company or third-party connections,
• The calculation and matching method used.

A report that merely repeats the conclusion "it may have been obtained from the offense," and that does not address the raw records and counter-explanations, may be open to challenge in terms of strong suspicion and review of reasoning.

Only a judge may issue the decision

Under Article 128(9) of the CMK, only a judge may decide on seizure and, under Article 128(10), on the appointment of a trustee for asset management. The authority of the trial court during the prosecution stage is reserved.

Earlier state-of-emergency or special temporary regimes may have contained provisions permitting action without obtaining a report or by a prosecutor's decision. These should not be generalized to the current ordinary regime of Article 128 of the CMK.

The measure must be suitable, necessary and proportionate

The existence of the statutory conditions does not justify the automatic application of the broadest measure. The following lighter means must be considered in the specific case:

• An annotation in the land registry instead of closing the real estate to actual use,
• An annotation in the traffic registry and delivery to a custodian instead of physically holding the vehicle,
• Limiting the amount linked to the offense instead of the entire account,
• Seizing only the share belonging to the suspect instead of targeting the whole company,
• Leaving amounts belonging to third parties outside the scope,
• Partial use for essential living and business expenses.

The Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) accepts that seizure is an interference with the right to property and that it must not impose a heavier burden on the person than what is unavoidable, in terms of both scope and duration.

Which Asset Values Can Be Seized under CMK Article 128?

Real estate

A seizure decision on real estate is carried out by entering an annotation in the land registry. The annotation may restrict sale, transfer, mortgage and other dispositions, but it does not by itself eliminate the actual use of the property.

In an objection, the following points matter:

• The date of acquisition of the property,
• The account from which the sale price was paid,
• Loan and mortgage records,
• Money from an earlier property sale,
• Inheritance or gift documents,
• The contribution of the spouse or a third party,
• Whether a specific share, rather than the whole property, is linked.

Acquisition before the date of the offense may be a strong defense fact, but it is not conclusive by itself. The prosecuting authority may argue that proceeds of crime were later used to pay off debt, loan installments or an investment that increased the value of the property. This allegation too must be shown with concrete records.

Land, sea and air transport vehicles

A decision under Article 128 of the CMK concerning a vehicle is applied by entering an annotation in the relevant registry. Physically placing the vehicle in custody as well is a heavier interference, and why it is necessary must be explained.

The Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation examine the long-term physical detention of a vehicle belonging to a good-faith third party from the standpoint of proportionality and compensation, particularly where it was applied even though a lighter means such as a registry annotation was sufficient.

For a vehicle, the following should be documented:

• The registration certificate and the real owner,
• The actual user,
• Whether the person knew it was used in the offense,
• Commercial activity and loss of income,
• The date of delivery to the custodian,
• Damage and loss of value.

Accounts at banks and other financial institutions

A decision to seize a bank account is notified immediately to the relevant bank or financial institution by technical means of communication and is also separately served. Acts aimed at nullifying the decision are invalid.

Can the whole account or only a specific amount be restricted?

The law permits seizure of a bank account; however, the proportionality review may require separating the amount linked to the offense from money of lawful origin.

Even if a broader measure was applied at the initial stage because of the complexity of the money movements, as the investigation progresses, the following:

• The total amount associated with the offense,
• Legitimate wages and commercial income,
• The balance before the decision,
• Payments received later,
• Funds held in trust or collections belonging to third parties

must be separated out, and partial lifting should be considered for the unnecessary portion.

Money received in the account after the decision

The scope of the text of the decision and the bank's practice are decisive. Indefinitely blocking all future inflows may raise a proportionality problem, especially for wages and commercial collections whose link to the offense is not explained.

In a request for partial release, the source of each inflow must be shown by an employer payroll record, an invoice, a lease agreement, a sale document or another record.

Salary, pension, alimony and social assistance

The rules on non-attachability in enforcement law do not apply automatically and as such to Article 128 of the CMK. Nevertheless, the type of income, the livelihood of the person and his or her family, the link of the asset value to the offense and the weight of the interference must be assessed from the standpoint of proportionality.

In particular, where a regular salary, pension, alimony or social assistance with no connection to the offense cannot be used at all on a continuing basis, a request for partial lifting or permission to use may be made with concrete documents.

Joint accounts and amounts belonging to third parties

It cannot be assumed that the whole balance of a joint account belongs to the suspect. The contribution ratios of the account holders, the sources of transfers and the real entitlement must be investigated.

For an amount claimed to belong to a third party, the following must be submitted:

• The account of the sender of the transfer,
• The contract or debt relationship,
• The purpose of collection,
• Accounting and invoice records,
• Authority to use the account.

Rights and receivables held with natural or legal persons

Rent, a sale price, a service fee, a receivable from a company, insurance compensation, a dividend or another receivable may fall within Article 128 of the CMK. The decision is notified to the debtor, a natural or legal person, by technical means of communication and is also separately served.

The following must be made concrete for the receivable:

• From which contract it arose,
• When it became due,
• Which part of the amount is seen as linked to the offense,
• Whether it has been assigned to a third party.

Negotiable instruments

A check, promissory note, share certificate or other negotiable instrument may be the subject of the measure to the extent that it represents economic value and entitlement. The date of issuance and transfer of the instrument, the underlying relationship and the real rights holder should be investigated.

Company shares

Seizing a share in a company of which the suspect or defendant is a partner is not seizure of all assets of the company's legal entity or the appointment of a trustee to the company's management.

In the seizure of a share, the following must be examined separately:

• The suspect's share ratio,
• The date and price of acquisition of the share,
• The company's other partners,
• The rights of good-faith partners,
• The link of the share to being obtained from the offense.

The Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber's decision E.2023/16670, K.2025/6908 states that values belonging to a legal entity and including the shares of good-faith third parties must be left outside the seizure if they cannot be confiscated later.

Safe-deposit boxes and other asset values

The contents of a safe-deposit box and other rights with economic value may be the subject of the measure. Crypto-assets too may, in a specific case, be treated as an "other asset value" or as a right held with a service provider.

For a crypto-asset, the following must be determined technically:

• The wallet address,
• The exchange account,
• Control of the private key,
• The on-chain transaction record,
• Fiat currency inflows and outflows,
• The beneficial owner.

The mere fact that a wallet is seen on a device may not by itself show that all assets belong to the person concerned.

How Is a Bank Block Distinguished from a CMK Article 128 Seizure?

The statement "the account has been blocked" does not explain the legal basis. The same result may arise from different acts.

Without requesting the supporting document of the act from the bank, the public prosecutor's office or the court, the correct application route cannot be chosen.

How Should the CMK Article 128 Institutional Report Be Reviewed?

The institutional report is not a formal annex to the seizure decision; it is one of the technical bases expected to establish the link of being obtained from the offense.

Core data the report should cover

• The persons and companies examined,
• Accounts, period and currencies,
• Dates of acquisition of the assets,
• Lawful income and expenses,
• Clusters of transactions regarded as suspicious,
• Connected persons and accounts,
• The comparison method used,
• The amount or value assessed as obtained from the offense,
• Why alternative legitimate explanations were not accepted.

How is the defense against the report prepared?

The defense should not merely say "we do not agree with the report." For each critical finding, a counter-explanation should be built with:

• Raw bank records,
• Invoices and contracts,
• Tax returns,
• Payroll,
• Commercial books and current account records,
• Loan or financing documents,
• Sale and delivery records,
• Inheritance or gift documents.

That the report addresses only selected transactions, leaves out lawful income in the same period, makes a wrong link through name similarity or a company connection, double counts, or evaluates currency conversions incorrectly may be a specific ground for objection.

File restriction and effective objection

There may be a restriction order in the investigation file. Nevertheless, a person cannot develop an effective objection without knowing which asset value is treated as proceeds of crime on the basis of which underlying fact.

Even if access to the whole of the file is not possible, a balance protecting the right of defense should be struck with respect to:

• A full copy of the measure decision,
• The seizure list,
• The implementing letters,
• The core part of the report that forms the basis of the measure,
• The reasoning for continuing the decision.

How Is a Seizure Decision Implemented?

During implementation of the decision, for bank, land registry, traffic or trade registry acts exceeding the limits of the decision, an explanation, a correction and partial lifting may be requested.

How Is a CMK Article 128 Decision Challenged?

The objection period is, as a rule, two weeks

Under the current text of Article 268 of the CMK, an objection against a decision of a judge or court, unless a separate period is stated in the law, is made to the authority that issued the decision within two weeks from the day the decision was learned of.

The seven-day period found in older sources is no longer current for decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024.

Where is the objection filed?

The petition is submitted to the authority that issued the decision. If that authority finds the objection well-founded, it may correct its decision; if not, it sends it, within three days at the most, to the authority competent to review it.

The reviewing authority is determined according to the judgeship or court that issued the decision and the current system of Article 268 of the CMK.

An objection does not automatically stop the measure

Under Article 269 of the CMK, an objection does not, as a rule, stop the execution of the decision. The authority that issued the decision or the authority that will review the objection may decide to suspend its implementation.

For this reason, if necessary, the petition should separately request not only the lifting of the decision but also:

• Temporary suspension of the implementation of the measure,
• Release of a specific account or amount,
• Covering essential expenses,
• Lifting of physical holding beyond the registry annotation.

Core legal axes of the objection

• The alleged offense is not in the catalog.
• There is no strong suspicion that the offense was committed.
• There is no separate and concrete evidence that the asset was obtained from the offense.
• The asset does not belong to the suspect or defendant.
• The value has not been specified concretely.
• There is no institutional report, or it does not explain the link of being obtained from the offense.
• An authority without competence issued the decision.
• The decision is disproportionate; a lighter means was not considered.
• The rights of third parties and victims were not considered.
• New evidence has removed the ground for the measure.
• The measure has remained in place for an unreasonable period and has been continued with formulaic reasoning.

Documents to support the objection

• The decision and the implementing letters,
• Title deed, registration certificate, registry and share records,
• Bank statements and transfer receipts,
• Invoices, contracts and delivery documents,
• Tax returns and commercial book records,
• Payroll and employment documents,
• Loan, inheritance, gift or sale documents,
• Company partnership and beneficial owner records,
• A current income-expense and cash flow statement,
• Payment and ownership documents of the third party.

How Is Lifting or Narrowing of the Measure Requested?

Missing the first objection period does not mean that no application can be made when the conditions of the measure later cease to exist. Seizure is a provisional measure, and its present necessity must continue.

Return and lifting under CMK Article 131

For seized items belonging to the suspect, the defendant or a third party, where:

• There is no longer a need to keep them for the investigation or prosecution,
• It is understood that they will not be subject to confiscation,

the public prosecutor, judge or court may decide on their return, ex officio or upon request. An objection may be made to a refusal decision.

If a value seized under Article 128 of the CMK belongs to the victim who suffered harm from the offense and is no longer needed as evidence, it is returned to the owner.

Staged requests other than full lifting

1. Lifting of the measure in full.
2. Lifting in respect of specific values whose link to the offense cannot be established.
3. Release of the part of the account other than the amount associated with the offense.
4. Separating out later-received wages, pensions or commercial collections.
5. Release of the amount belonging to a third party in a joint account.
6. Lifting physical holding of the vehicle and settling for a registry annotation.
7. Limiting to a specific share instead of the whole real estate.
8. Covering essential living or business expenses.
9. Review of the measure at certain intervals with concrete reasoning.

Non-prosecution decision (KYOK), acquittal or decision that there is no ground for confiscation

A non-prosecution decision, an acquittal or a decision that there is no ground for confiscation substantially removes the basis of the measure. Nevertheless, an express lifting and implementing letter from the relevant authority may be required for the records at the bank, land registry or registries to actually be removed.

When the decision becomes final, the following should be followed up:

• The decision to lift the measure,
• The official writs to the bank and registry institutions,
• The delivery record of physical items,
• Determination of damage and missing items.

How Long Can the Seizure Measure Last?

For Article 128 of the CMK, there is no general time limit providing for automatic review every thirty days, as in pretrial detention. However, this does not mean that the measure can be continued indefinitely and without limit.

The longer the duration, the greater the burden of reasoning

The suspicion that was considered sufficient when the measure was first ordered cannot be continued years later with the same formulaic sentence. Developments in the investigation and trial, the evidence gathered, the possibility of confiscation and lighter means must be re-evaluated.

The Sait Görmüş pilot decision

In the Sait Görmüş application, the Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court examined a seizure applied by way of a registry annotation that lasted about thirteen years, with no effective remedy regarding the length of the measure, and decided that the right to an effective remedy, in connection with the right to property, had been violated.

The decision is a pilot decision on the structural problem arising from long-term seizures. It shows the importance not only of compensation but of a legal remedy that effectively reviews the present necessity of the measure.

A measure exceeding fifteen years

In the Constitutional Court's decision, Application No. 2021/12624, dated July 22, 2026, a seizure lasting more than fifteen years was held to be a violation of the right to property on the ground that it imposed a disproportionate burden in terms of scope and duration.

Length alone is not an automatic violation

The complexity of the file, the number of international transactions, the network of persons and companies, the fact that the measure was applied only by registry annotation, the reasoned examination of objections and the person's contribution to the length of the measure are taken into account.

On the other hand:

• Failure to provide an effective objection,
• Failure to make an individual assessment for each value,
• Continuation of the measure even though the possibility of confiscation has disappeared,
• Failure to return property belonging to a good-faith third party,
• Failure to consider a lighter means

strengthen the conclusion of disproportionality.

How Are the Rights of Third Parties Protected?

Being in another person's possession is different from belonging to another person

The law permits seizure also where a value belonging to the suspect or defendant is in the possession of another person. This provision does not give a general authority to take property that really belongs to a third party merely because of that person's connection with the suspect.

How does a third party show real entitlement?

• Title deed or vehicle registry,
• Purchase contract,
• Payment receipts,
• Loan and installment records,
• Tax returns,
• Inheritance or gift documents,
• Commercial books and invoices,
• Actual use and income records,
• Share ledger and capital payment documents.

A name or registry entry alone may not always be sufficient; the real source of payment and economic control may also be examined.

A value belonging to a good-faith third party that cannot later be confiscated must be left outside the seizure

The Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber's decision E.2023/16670, K.2025/6908 accepts that values belonging to a good-faith third party and which cannot be confiscated, such as items leased by a legal entity or a share belonging to a partner unaware of the offense, must be left outside the seizure.

If the situation is understood later, the value or share must be removed from the scope of the measure.

Loss suffered by a good-faith vehicle owner

In decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, the physical holding of a vehicle belonging to a good-faith third party for an unreasonable period, and the failure to explain why a lighter means such as a registry annotation was insufficient, have been addressed in terms of compensation and proportionality.

Compensation for Unlawful or Disproportionate Seizure

Which cases does CMK Article 141/1-j cover?

A person may claim pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages from the State if:

• Their assets were seized even though the conditions were not met,
• The measures necessary to protect the assets were not taken,
• The assets were used for a purpose other than the intended one,
• The assets were not returned in time.

Good-faith third parties too may use this route if the conditions are met.

Time limit and competent court

Under Article 142 of the CMK, the claim for compensation must be made:

• Within three months from the notification to the person concerned that the decision or judgment has become final,
• And in any event within one year following the date of finalization.

The claim is, as a rule, decided by the High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) at the place where the injured person resides; if that court is connected with the act and there is no other High Criminal Court division in the same place, by the High Criminal Court of the nearest place.

The failure to serve a final decision is important for the start of the three-month period; the one-year final period must be observed separately.

Which damages may be claimed?

• Loss of income from a vehicle or real estate that could not be used,
• The cost of an alternative vehicle or financing,
• The financing cost caused by the bank account block,
• Damage to and loss of value of the item,
• Damage arising from fault in maintenance and custody,
• Loss of a commercial contract,
• Other direct damages that can be documented,
• Non-pecuniary damages, if the conditions are met.

The damage must be proven by documents, with a proper causal link to the measure. Every seizure inevitably causes some restrictions; for compensation, unlawfulness, unnecessary prolongation or damage beyond what was unavoidable is what matters.

Confidentiality and Limits on Public Disclosure in an Ongoing Investigation

An article may be published on general legal institutions; but the following aspects of a specific ongoing file:

• Identities of the suspect or third parties,
• Bank accounts and amounts,
• Crypto wallet addresses,
• Trade secrets,
• Documents in a restricted file,
• Witness statements,
• Digital records not yet discussed,
• Defense strategy

must not be carried into publicly available content.

The confidentiality of the investigation, the presumption of innocence, the protection of personal data and the protection of company reputation must be assessed together. A general article should be kept separate from a defense in a specific file.

First Checklist When a Seizure Decision Is Learned of

Identity of the decision

• The judgeship or court that issued the decision,
• The date and number of the decision,
• The article relied on,
• The investigation or case number,
• The date it was learned of and served,
• The notice of the legal remedy.

Substantive conditions

• Is the alleged offense in the CMK Article 128 catalog?
• What is the concrete evidence of the suspicion of the offense?
• Has the link of being obtained from the offense been established for each asset value?
• Does the value belong to the suspect or defendant?
• Is there an institutional report?
• Have the date of acquisition and the source of financing been investigated?
• Is the decision specific and proportionate?

Bank and registry implementation

• Which account, real estate, vehicle or share was restricted?
• Did the bank close only outflows or all movements?
• Was money received after the decision also blocked?
• Was the scope of the decision correctly entered in the land registry or traffic registry?
• Were third-party amounts or shares affected?

Time limit and application plan

• The last day of the two-week objection period,
• A request to suspend implementation,
• A request for partial or full lifting,
• An application for return under CMK Article 131,
• A third-party ownership application,
• Long duration and the Constitutional Court (AYM) process,
• Possible compensation under CMK Articles 141–142.

Strategic Structure of Requests in an Objection and Lifting Petition

1. First, lifting of the seizure decision in full.
2. If this is not accepted, partial lifting in respect of values whose link to the offense is not shown.
3. Release of the part of the bank account other than the amount associated with the offense.
4. Separating out salary, pension, alimony and documented commercial collections.
5. Leaving a joint account or a third party's share outside the scope.
6. For a vehicle, settling for a registry annotation instead of physical holding.
7. For real estate or a company share, keeping only the linked share under the measure.
8. Permitting essential living and business expenses.
9. Opening the institutional report and supporting records to the defense, or obtaining an additional report.
10. Review of the present necessity of the measure at certain intervals with concrete reasoning.

The requests should be built not with general legal sentences but with separate documents and calculations for each account, real estate, vehicle and share.

Common Mistakes

Treating CMK Article 128 and general seizure as the same procedure

Under Article 128 of the CMK, the power to decide lies only with the judge, and there is an institutional report requirement. The prosecutor or law-enforcement order system under general seizure cannot be applied automatically.

Using the seven-day objection period

After June 1, 2024, the general objection period is two weeks. The old seven-day information is not current.

Treating all assets as proceeds of crime

Suspicion of a catalog offense does not show that every value was obtained from the offense. A separate link is required for each asset.

Confusing the bank's internal block with judicial seizure

A bank block, a MASAK postponement, CMK Article 128, CMK Article 128/A and enforcement attachment are different legal regimes.

Treating a third party's possession as ownership, or the reverse

That an item is in another person's hands does not by itself show that it belongs to that person, or that it does not belong to the suspect. Real entitlement is investigated through documents.

Thinking that seizing a company share means seizing the entire company

Article 128 of the CMK targets the share. A trustee over company management and interference with company assets are subject to separate conditions.

Reviewing the report only for its existence

How the report establishes the link of being obtained from the offense, and whether it has considered lawful income and counter-explanations, must be reviewed.

Thinking the measure can never be lifted once the first objection is rejected

The conditions of the measure may change later. Article 131 of the CMK, partial lifting, a third-party application and review of long duration may also be pursued separately.

Conclusion

The legitimate purpose of asset seizure under Article 128 of the CMK is to protect, until a possible confiscation, economic values for which there is strong suspicion that they were obtained from the offense. This purpose does not allow the entire economic life of the suspect or defendant to be halted for an indefinite period and without individualization.

For a lawful decision, a catalog offense, concrete evidence that the offense was committed, separate strong suspicion that each asset value was obtained from the offense, belonging to the suspect or defendant, concrete specification, an institutional report, a judge's decision and proportionality must be present together.

When a decision is learned of, the two-week objection period must be calculated without delay; at the same time, the source of acquisition, account movements, third-party rights and the effect of the loss must be documented. If the conditions of the measure have ceased to exist, not only full lifting but also partial release and lighter methods should be requested. For measures that are contrary to law or that continue for an unreasonable period, compensation under CMK Articles 141–142 and constitutional application routes are assessed separately.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a prosecutor seize a bank account under CMK Article 128?

As a rule, no. Article 128(9) of the CMK provides that only a judge may decide on seizure under this article. The urgent prosecutor's order provided for certain cyber-related offenses in Article 128/A of the CMK is a separate regime.

Can CMK Article 128 be applied to every offense?

No. It can be applied only to the catalog offenses listed in Article 128(2). If other special laws contain an express reference, that provision is examined separately.

Can a CMK Article 128 decision be issued without a MASAK report?

In the current ordinary regime, a report on the value obtained from the offense must be obtained from the institution listed in the law, as the case may be. Former temporary or state-of-emergency exceptions are not the current general rule.

Can the entire bank account be blocked?

The law permits a measure on the account; however, the scope must be proportionate, and the amount linked to the offense and values of lawful origin must be separated out as the investigation progresses. Why the measure is necessary for the whole account must be reasoned.

Is a salary received in the account after the decision also blocked?

Practice may vary according to the text of the decision and the bank's letter. For a later-received salary or other regular income that has no connection with the offense, a request for partial lifting and permission to use may be submitted.

Can a spouse's account or real estate be seized?

Being a spouse is not enough by itself. It must be shown with concrete evidence that the value in fact belongs to the suspect or defendant, or that the conditions of another statutory measure have been met.

Is seizure of a company account the same as seizure of a company share?

No. A company account relates to the company's legal entity; a partnership share relates to the partnership right of the suspect or defendant. Ownership and the link of being obtained from the offense are assessed separately.

How many days is the objection period against a CMK Article 128 decision?

Unless the law states a separate period, it is two weeks from the day the decision is learned of. The old seven-day information is not current for decisions issued after June 1, 2024.

Does an objection automatically stop the seizure?

No. As a rule, an objection does not stop implementation. The authority that issued the decision or the authority reviewing the objection may decide to suspend implementation; this must be separately requested.

Can lifting be requested again if the first objection is rejected?

Yes. If there is new evidence, changed conditions, completion of the report, the link with the offense has fallen away or the measure has become disproportionately prolonged, lifting or narrowing may be requested again on current grounds.

What should a good-faith third party do?

The third party should request lifting of the measure with title deed, registration, payment, loan, tax and commercial documents showing ownership, the source of acquisition and lack of knowledge of the offense. If the conditions are met, the compensation route may also be considered.

Is there a maximum duration for the measure?

There is no general maximum duration in Article 128 of the CMK. Even so, the measure must retain its present necessity, be reviewed within a reasonable time and not place an excessive burden on the person. The Constitutional Court (AYM) has held a seizure lasting more than fifteen years to be a violation.

When can compensation be claimed for unlawful seizure?

Compensation may be claimed under Articles 141–142 of the CMK within three months from the notification of the final decision or judgment, and in any event within one year from finalization.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular Articles 123, 127, 128, 128/A, 131, 141, 142 and 267–269.
• Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code, in particular Articles 54–55.
• Law No. 7499 Amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and Certain Laws; the change to the time limit in CMK Article 268.
• Law No. 7571 Amending the Turkish Penal Code and Certain Laws and Decree-Law No. 631; CMK Article 128/A.
• Article 160 of the Banking Law No. 5411.
• Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607.
• Articles 68 and 74 of the Law No. 2863 on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Property.

Selected Decisions of the Higher Courts

• Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) Plenary Assembly, Sait Görmüş, Application No. 2022/19376, December 12, 2024.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2021/12624, July 22, 2026.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2020/31715, November 18, 2025.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2018/1058, November 23, 2022.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2017/35581, September 29, 2020.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2016/4557, July 4, 2019.
• Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 3rd Criminal Chamber, E.2023/16670, K.2025/6908, February 26, 2025.
• Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber, E.2023/16574, K.2025/16288, May 29, 2025.
• Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E.2024/2513, K.2025/3583, April 8, 2025.
• Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E.2024/1581, K.2025/4609, May 20, 2025.
• Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E.2021/10276, K.2024/20, January 8, 2024.
• Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E.2022/3006, K.2024/3120, June 11, 2024.
• Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E.2022/3392, K.2024/561, February 12, 2024.

Academic and Institutional Sources

• Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi (Journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations), "Seizure of Real Estate, Rights and Receivables as a Protective Measure in the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK Article 128)" (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nda Taşınmaz, Hak ve Alacaklara Elkoyma Koruma Tedbiri).
• 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.
• Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation and Case-Law Program, current text of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271.
• Constitutional Court Case-Law Information Bank, decisions on the right to property and seizure.