Seizure in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Limits, Objection and Routes to Return

Seizure is a temporary protective measure applied to preserve an item or an asset value as evidence or to secure possible confiscation; it is neither punishment in advance nor an automatic transfer of ownership to the State. Lawfulness is assessed by reference to the correct statutory basis, the competent authority, the required level of suspicion, procedural safeguards and proportionality. The general objection period is two weeks; by contrast, judicial review and requests for return are subject to different provisions. Phones and computers, bank accounts, immovable property and items belonging to third parties cannot be explained under the same regime. The fact that the annulment of CMK Article 134 concerning digital examination will enter into force on February 25, 2027 is also important with regard to the date of the act. [1] [4] [6]

Seizure is not a penalty that extinguishes the right of ownership

Article 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) governs the taking into safekeeping of asset values that are considered useful as a means of proof or that form the subject of confiscation of items or of proceeds. If the person holding them does not hand them over voluntarily, seizure is applied. However, the voluntary nature of the handover does not justify holding the item for an unlimited period or examining its contents without the statutory conditions being met. The purpose of the safekeeping and its continuing necessity must still be reviewed. [1: Arts. 123–124]

Search, seizure and confiscation are different acts. A search aims to reach a person or evidence; seizure aims to preserve the relevant item or its value for the judicial process. Confiscation, by contrast, is a separate security measure subject to the conditions in Articles 54 and 55 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). The fact that a phone, a vehicle or money has been seized does not show that its owner has been found guilty or that the property has been definitively lost. [1] [3]

Attachment in enforcement proceedings, attachment by the tax administration, an interim injunction issued by a civil court and the freezing of assets under special laws are also not the same as seizure in criminal proceedings. A bank’s statement that “there is a block” does not by itself determine the correct route of application. First, the authority that issued the decision, the date of the act, the file number, the legal basis and the scope must be ascertained. This guide is based on judicial seizure under the CMK; the regimes under customs law and other special laws must be examined separately.

Lawfulness must be shown by concrete reasoning, not by abstract suspicion of an offense

There must be an explicable link between the item and the purpose of the investigation

In a general seizure, it must be determined which event the item will shed light on or why it may be subject to confiscation. Being found in a residence, at a workplace or on the suspect does not show that every item is related to the investigation. Conversely, an item held by a person who is not a suspect may also be the subject of the measure if it genuinely constitutes evidence. The status of the owner and the evidentiary nature of the item are separate questions. [1: Arts. 123, 127, 131]

There is no single standard of suspicion for all types of seizure. CMK Article 128 requires strong suspicion based on concrete evidence that the offense was committed and that the assets were obtained from that offense. For the digital search under Article 134, the additional condition is that there is no other means of obtaining evidence. The suspension of an account under Article 128/A is governed by its own standard of reasonable suspicion within its scope. The conditions of one measure cannot automatically be transferred to another. [1] [5]

The continuation of the measure must be as proportionate as its initiation

An interference with the right of ownership must satisfy the requirements of a statutory basis, public interest and proportionality together. It is not sufficient that the measure is suitable; whether it is necessary and the burden it imposes on the person must also be assessed. A seizure that may have been justified at the outset can turn into a legally different situation if it is maintained after the examination has been completed or the possibility of confiscation has disappeared. [2] [7]

A decision that merely refers to “the contents of the file,” “the nature of the offense” or “the ongoing examination” does not answer every specific objection. It must be discussed why the item is being held, what step is awaited and why lighter options such as copying, an annotation in the registry or controlled release are insufficient. A temporary measure cannot be turned into a de facto and indefinite deprivation without its reasoning being renewed. This does not mean that the same maximum period applies to every file. [1: Arts. 34, 131–132] [7]

Who decides on seizure, and within what time must judicial approval be obtained?

Under the general regime, the decision lies with the judge. Where delay would be prejudicial, seizure may be carried out by written order of the public prosecutor or, where the prosecutor cannot be reached, of the senior law enforcement officer. This sequence does not mean that law enforcement may seize items independently and on oral instructions in every case. The danger of delay and the impossibility of reaching the prosecutor must be capable of review in the specific case. [1: Art. 127]

A general seizure carried out without a judge’s decision is submitted to the competent judge for approval within 24 hours. The judge announces the decision within 48 hours of the seizure; otherwise, the seizure is lifted automatically. The periods cannot be added together to create a 72-hour period of authority. The time at which the act began, its submission for approval and the time of the judge’s decision must be established by separate records. [1: Art. 127/3]

The periods in the table do not mean that the item will in every case be handed back to its owner at the end of 48 hours. If a judge’s decision has been issued in time, the measure may be applied as long as its statutory conditions continue. Conversely, in a file where approval is missing, the continuation of de facto safekeeping calls for the time limit and the legal basis to be questioned in writing. [1] [5]

The record must make the identity of the item and the safekeeping process verifiable

How a seizure decision is implemented is as important as its existence. The officials carrying out the act, the date and time, the decision or written order, the place where the item was found, from whom it was taken, its quantity and its distinguishing features must be recorded. CMK Article 123/3 also provides for the value of the seized items or asset values to be determined. A vague entry such as “various items” can create problems both for the reliability of the evidence and for the later return and calculation of damage. [1: Arts. 121, 123, 127]

For a phone, the brand, model, serial or IMEI number; for a vehicle, the license plate and chassis number; for money and valuables, the amount, type and distinguishing records are important. The packaging, the seal, the receiving unit and the judicial custody (adli emanet) details must be traceable in the file. This does not mean that the same technical procedure is mandatory for every item; it ensures that which item was taken in what condition and what was done with it afterward can be explained.

A request may be made for factual errors in the record and the objection to be entered in it. The effect of signing or not signing must be assessed according to the type of document; merely refusing to sign does not automatically render the act void. Instead of physical intervention or argument with law enforcement, the focus should be on the copy of the decision, the record, the delivery entry and a legal application through an attorney. The scope of items handed over voluntarily and the request for their return should also be documented.

Seizure of a phone or computer does not confer unlimited power to examine its contents

Taking the device is separate from searching the data on it

Keeping a phone in safekeeping as stolen property is not the same act as examining its messages, photos or application records as evidence of an offense. A general search or seizure decision should not be applied on the assumption that it replaces the special conditions of Article 134 for every digital examination. For smartphones and similar devices, the technical function and the nature of the examination to be carried out must be assessed. The interception of communications, cloud data and obtaining records from third parties also cannot be merged under a single heading of authority. [1: Arts. 134–135] [6]

The current wording of Article 134 requires strong suspicion based on concrete evidence and the absence of any other means of obtaining evidence. The submission for judicial approval of a decision issued by the prosecutor in an urgent case, and the time within which the judge must decide, are specifically regulated. If the period expires or the judge decides otherwise, the immediate destruction of the copies made and of the decoded texts is provided for. Handing over a device voluntarily should not be interpreted as permission to make unlimited use of all private data. [1] [6]

Making copies and returning the device are integral safeguards of the examination

If the password cannot be broken, hidden data cannot be accessed or the procedure will take a long time, it may be necessary to take the device. However, once the password has been broken and the necessary copying has been completed, the device must be returned without delay. If it is additionally alleged that the device is the subject of the offense or an item that may be confiscated, the basis for this is assessed separately. [1: Art. 134/2]

Backing up all data during the seizure, giving a copy of that backup to the suspect or their attorney and recording the procedure in a signed record are among the existing statutory safeguards. This enables the defense to have the records examined independently. Deficiencies in the backup, the technical examination report and the delivery records must be specified concretely; where necessary, an expert opinion (uzman mütalaası) under CMK Article 67 should be obtained. [1: Arts. 67, 134] [6]

“Image” refers to a copy of the digital medium suitable for forensic examination; “hash” refers to the numerical digest value used to check whether data has changed. Technical integrity cannot be reduced to a single word appearing in a report. The method used, the date, the authority, the integrity of the copy, subsequent access and the records on which the report relies must be examined together. The manner in which evidence is obtained, its safekeeping and whether it can serve as a basis for the judgment cannot be separated from one another. [1: Arts. 206, 217] [6]

The AYM’s ruling on CMK Article 134 must be applied with its entry-into-force date kept distinct

As of October 18, 2026, the important distinction is this: CMK Article 134 has been annulled, but the annulment has not yet entered into force. The decision of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) dated February 12, 2026, numbered E.2023/128, K.2026/36, was published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) No. 33264 of May 25, 2026; it was decided that the annulment would enter into force nine months later, on February 25, 2027. The remaining part of the article was also included in the annulment because it could no longer be applied. [6] [10]

The Court did not disregard existing safeguards such as the judge’s decision, objection, backup and the defense’s ability to examine the data. The decisive problem is the absence of adequate statutory regulation concerning the retention, deletion and restriction of processing of the personal data obtained, particularly after the proceedings become final, as well as time limits and the rights of the person concerned. The majority assessed this gap as a disproportionate restriction with respect to private life and the protection of personal data. [6: §§ 48–68]

The dissenting judges argued that the existing procedural and archiving framework, legal remedies and other safeguards were adequate taken together, and that preserving the data could in some cases also be in the defendant’s favor. This view is not the majority’s reasoning for the annulment. Nor is the decision an individual judgment that results in an acquittal in a particular criminal case or in all digital records automatically being treated as unlawful. [6]

In practice, the date of the act, the text in force on that date and any new legislation that may be enacted after the annulment must be monitored together. It is wrong both to say “the article has been annulled, so today all devices are returned unconditionally” and to treat the annulment decision as if it did not exist. The data protection and proportionality problems identified in the reasoning may be taken into account in the legal assessment of existing applications; however, the deferred entry into force and the legal conditions specific to past acts cannot be bypassed. [6] [10]

Special conditions apply to the seizure of bank accounts, immovable property and company shares

CMK Article 128 governs the seizure of asset values connected with certain offenses. There must be strong suspicion based on concrete evidence that the offense was committed and that the values in question were obtained from these offenses. The fact that a person is a suspect does not mean that all of that person’s assets are proceeds of crime. The link to the offense and the values brought within the scope must be shown concretely. [1: Art. 128]

For immovable property, means of transport, bank accounts, rights and receivables, negotiable instruments, company shares and other values, the article’s list of offenses and the condition of the relevant institutional report are checked. The three-month period relating to the report and the additional two-month period for special reasons do not mean that every seizure is lifted automatically after five months. Whether the relevant report exists and how long the measure continues are separate issues. [1: Art. 128/1–2]

Under this article, only a judge may order seizure. Methods of implementation are provided for, such as an annotation in the land registry for immovable property, an entry in the relevant registry for means of transport, notification to the institution for bank accounts, and notification to the company and the trade registry for company shares. Seizure of a company share does not mean that all of the company’s assets are deemed the property of the shareholder, or that a trustee (kayyım) is in every case appointed to the company’s management; the conditions of the management measures under Articles 128/10 and 133 are examined separately. [1]

The fact that the suspect’s property is in the possession of another person does not prevent seizure if the statutory conditions are met. However, being in the hands of another person is not the same as genuinely belonging to another person. A personal or commercial connection with a spouse, a shareholder or another company cannot replace an investigation into independent ownership. Documents on money originating from salary, sales, loans, inheritance or commercial activity should be assessed together with account movements and transaction dates. [1] [7]

Suspending an account for 48 hours is not the same as judicial seizure

Article 128/A, added to the CMK by Law No. 7571, establishes a separate framework for certain IT-related offenses of theft, fraud and misuse of bank or credit cards. The scope is TCK Article 142/2-e, Article 158/1-f and l, and Article 245; not every financial dispute or every offense falls under this article. [5]

Where there is reasonable suspicion that these offenses have been committed, a bank, payment service provider or crypto-asset service provider may suspend the relevant account used in the offense for up to 48 hours. The transaction and the account movements are reported immediately to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı), and the suspension to the account holder. The account holder may apply to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor for the suspension to be lifted; the prosecutor decides on the application within 24 hours. [1: Art. 128/A/1–2] [5]

During the suspension period, the benefit that is the subject of the offense may be seized by a judge’s decision or, in urgent cases, by the prosecutor’s written order. An act without a judge is submitted for approval within 24 hours; the judge decides within 48 hours of the seizure. In this special route, the report requirement of Article 128 does not apply. The entire suspended account and the scope of the benefit that is the subject of the offense that must be seized should not be equated. If there is a subsequent judicial decision, the expiry of the 48 hours does not mean that this separate decision is lifted automatically. [5]

The accessible summary of Hakan Gündüz’s 2026 study treats account suspension and seizure of the benefit that is the subject of the offense as two separate protective measures; it emphasizes the granting of suspension authority to private-law legal entities as a distinguishing feature of the new framework. This doctrinal distinction shows the importance of building the application on the actual basis of the act, rather than merely in the form “the block should be lifted.” The account given here is limited to the institutional summary of the study. [9]

Lighter protective options should be considered for vehicles and commercial goods

Examining a vehicle as evidence, holding it on the allegation that it was used in an offense and subjecting it to Article 128 as a value obtained from an offense are different legal characterizations. Therefore, it cannot be said that “an annotation in the registry is sufficient for all vehicles.” However, continued physical safekeeping cannot be extended without explaining what need it rests on, especially once the examination has been completed. [1] [7]

CMK Article 132/5 makes it possible for the item to be left with the suspect, the defendant or another person for safekeeping, provided that care and supervision measures are taken and that it is handed over immediately on request; security may also be required. This is not in every case a full and unconditional return. The authority of the person receiving the item as custodian (yediemin) to use and dispose of it is limited by the content of the decision. [1]

If a commercial vehicle, a production machine or a business’s computer systems are being held, the loss of activity must be explained with concrete documents. Contracts, delivery obligations, completion of the technical examination, alternative safekeeping conditions and other methods of preserving evidence may be submitted together. Economic loss alone does not make lifting the measure mandatory; however, it is a real effect that must be assessed in the review of necessity and proportionality. [7]

The ownership of third parties must be protected with regard to both evidentiary needs and confiscation

A claim that the item belongs not to the suspect but to another person should be supported by documents such as invoices, contracts, registry entries, bank payments, delivery or theft records. A mere statement that “it is my property” should not be considered sufficient. On the other hand, the existence of third-party ownership does not mean that an item constituting evidence may not be taken under any circumstances. [1: Arts. 123, 131] [7]

In the assessment of confiscation, items belonging to a bona fide third party and the link to the offense are important. Different rules apply to items whose possession or circulation constitutes an offense by their nature. For this reason, an acquittal or a decision of non-prosecution is not the sole criterion requiring the unconditional handover of every item. The true rights holder, the continuing evidentiary need and the conditions for confiscation are determined together. [1] [3]

There is also a possibility of return for a victim’s stolen property or for money transferred through fraud. Article 131/2 governs the case where values within the scope of Article 128 belong to the injured victim and are not needed as evidence; Article 128/A/5 governs the case where it becomes clear that the benefit seized under the special regime belongs to the victim. If there are multiple claims of entitlement, ownership, the amount and the claims over the same money must be examined with reasons. [1] [5]

Law offices and documents containing professional secrets are subject to special safeguards

Under CMK Article 130, law offices may be searched only by court decision, in relation to the event specified in the decision and under the supervision of the public prosecutor. The president of the bar association or an attorney representing the president must be present. These safeguards are important not for granting attorneys a personal privilege but for protecting the defense and the confidential relationship established with the client. [1]

If it is asserted that a document sought to be seized belongs to the professional relationship between the attorney and the client, the statutory procedure of sealing, separate assessment and judicial decision applies. The relevant decisions are made within 24 hours; if it is established that the item belongs to the professional relationship, it is returned immediately and the records documenting the act are destroyed. An objection based on professional secrecy should be recorded with reference to the relevant document or data group rather than as a general statement that leaves the entire scope of the act unclear. [1: Art. 130]

The prohibition on seizure in Article 126 must also be observed: letters and documents between the suspect or defendant and certain persons who may refuse to testify are protected as long as they are in the possession of those persons. This provision does not make all correspondence absolutely inviolable everywhere. Seizure of mail, the opening procedure in Article 129 and its exceptions also cannot be reduced to a general examination of items. [1]

The general period for objecting to a seizure decision is two weeks

The application is made to the authority that issued the decision; the reviewing authority is determined separately

Under CMK Article 268, the general objection period is two weeks from the day on which the person concerned learned of the decision in the manner prescribed by law. The seven-day period found in older sources is not the current general rule for decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024. Two weeks and fifteen days are also not the same period; the conditions of learning of the decision and of notification must be determined from the specific file. [1: Art. 268, Transitional Art. 6] [4]

The objection is addressed to the authority that issued the decision, by petition or by the record procedure provided for in the law. If that authority does not find the objection justified, it sends it within three days at most to the competent reviewing authority. It cannot be said that an objection to every decision of a criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) is made to the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi): the jurisdiction rule specific to pretrial detention and judicial control does not apply automatically to seizure. The authority is determined under Article 268/3 based on the type of decision and the judicial district. [1]

An objection does not automatically suspend the implementation of the decision. Where necessary, the suspension of execution under CMK Article 269 must be requested separately. If there is a risk of disposal, interruption of commercial activity or damage that is difficult to reverse, the basis for this request should be explained with documents. Although the protection of Article 264 may be considered in the case of an application to the wrong authority, the time limit or the correct form of application should not be neglected in reliance on it. [1]

An objection is not the same as judicial review that may be requested at any time

Article 127/4 allows a person whose items or assets have been seized to request a decision from the judge at any time. Under Article 131, return may also be requested on the ground that the measure is no longer needed. These routes do not in every case restart an ordinary objection period that has expired, nor do they create unlimited legal remedies against the same decision. [1]

An objection to the initial decision may be directed at the authority, the conditions or the initial reasoning. A later request for return, by contrast, may be based on developments such as the completion of the examination, a new document of ownership, clarification of entitlement or the prolongation of the measure. In both applications, which legal outcome is sought for which item must be clear. The possibility of making ongoing requests does not remove the need to observe other statutory application time limits.

It is not always necessary to wait for the end of the case to obtain the return of a seized item

CMK Article 131 governs the return of an item, ex officio or upon request, where there is no longer any need to keep it for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution, or where it becomes clear that it will not be subject to confiscation. Depending on the stage and the authority, the public prosecutor, the judge or the court decides. An objection may be made against the rejection of the request. There is no general rule that an acquittal or a final judgment must always be awaited for a return. [1]

In the investigation file, the request is addressed to the relevant Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor and, where necessary, to the competent judgeship; at the prosecution stage, to the court hearing the case. The petition should contain the custody or decision details, the distinguishing features of the item, its ownership, why it should no longer be held and the supporting documents. For a digital device, the status of the examination and copying; for a vehicle, the on-site examination and expert procedures; and for an account, the source of the money and the disputed amount should be specifically explained.

Obtaining a return decision is not the whole process. The transmission of the decision to the judicial custody unit, law enforcement, the bank or the relevant registry and its implementation must be followed up. Even if a vehicle has been handed back, the annotation in the registry may remain; in a bank account, restrictions based on multiple files may still be in place. Each act must be checked against its own basis. Lifting in one file does not automatically remove another valid attachment or measure.

On handover, the item should be compared with the initial record; any missing parts, damage, serial number discrepancies or loss of value should be recorded. The handover document should not be regarded as nothing more than a “received” signature. Where necessary, a technical examination and a determination of damage should be carried out; lawful photo and document records should be preserved.

The duty of safekeeping includes preserving the value of the item

CMK Article 132 provides for preserving the value of the seized item and taking the measures necessary to prevent it from being damaged. Rust, damp, data loss, missing parts or failure to carry out necessary maintenance cannot be accepted in advance as the inevitable consequence of the measure. The place and conditions of safekeeping must be suited to the characteristics of the item. [1] [7]

If there is a danger that the item will be damaged or will suffer a substantial loss of value, it may be disposed of before the judgment becomes final. The decision is made by the judge during the investigation and by the court during the prosecution stage; the persons concerned are heard beforehand and the decision is notified to them. This act is neither an ordinary administrative disposition nor automatic confiscation. The option of handover in return for payment of the market value under Article 132/6 may also be assessed separately under its own conditions. [1]

AYM: Return of the item does not eliminate damage arising during safekeeping

In the Hikmet Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., Application No. 2016/4557, July 4, 2019 decision, a truck that had been stolen and later used in an offense by other persons was de facto held for approximately three years and eleven months; damage resulting from the lack of protection of the vehicle was established. The AYM assessed the delay in identifying the true owner together with the duty of safekeeping. [7]

The key finding in the decision is as follows: “it is beyond doubt that the obligation to protect and preserve the seized item during the period of seizure lies with the public authorities.” The reasoning that the damage could be claimed only from the persons who used the vehicle in the offense did not remove the responsibility of the public authorities arising from their own act. [7: §77]

The AYM found a violation of the right of ownership and ordered a retrial; since it considered the retrial to be sufficient redress, it rejected the direct compensation claims. The separate allegation concerning reasonable time was found inadmissible because remedies had not been exhausted. Accordingly, the decision should not be reported as though all allegations were upheld or as though the AYM directly ordered payment of the value of the vehicle. [7]

Compensation may be claimed for unjustified seizure, late return and lack of protection

CMK Article 141/1-j governs the possibility of claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage from the State on the grounds of seizure without the conditions being met, failure to take the necessary protective precautions, use for purposes other than those intended and failure to return in time. Not only the suspect or defendant but also third-party owners of items who meet the conditions are protected. An acquittal does not mean that there is no need to prove each item of damage separately; conversely, compensation cannot be reduced to cases of acquittal alone. [1] [7] [8]

Damage should be explained through repair costs, loss of value, actual economic loss arising from the inability to use the item or other consequences that can be proven in the specific case. Hypothetical turnover, profits whose realization is uncertain and claiming the same loss twice under different names can create problems. The condition of the item at the outset and on return, its market value, its intended use, the duration of safekeeping and causation should be shown with technical and financial documents.

Seizure compensation has not automatically been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Compensation Commission

With Law No. 7499, certain claims under subparagraphs e, f and l of CMK Article 141/1 were placed under the regime of the Compensation Commission (Tazminat Komisyonu). Subparagraph j, concerning seizure, is not included in this list. Under the conditions of Article 142, the High Criminal Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi) of the place where the injured person resides has jurisdiction; in the case of a related court specified in the law, another appropriate High Criminal Court has jurisdiction. If a petition contains claims arising from different measures, the jurisdictional distinction is made separately. [1: Art. 142/2] [4]

Article 142/1 provides a time-limit structure of three months from notification of finality to the person concerned and, in any event, one year following finality. However, whether finality is required must be assessed separately depending on the nature of the claim. The generalization that “no seizure compensation can be claimed until the main file is concluded” is incompatible with current case law. The time limit and actionability must be examined together with the basis of the damage and the way in which it arose. [1] [8]

The Court of Cassation’s 2026 decision: Finality cannot automatically be required for late return

In the decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi) dated July 1, 2026, E.2025/7405, K.2026/6889, a compensation claim based on the return on September 16, 2022 of used salvaged car parts and spare parts seized on May 25, 2009 was examined. Part of the main criminal file had not yet become final. The Chamber stated that finality of the judgment was not required for the specific Article 141/1-j claim and that reasonable pecuniary compensation should be assessed on account of the late return. [8]

The outcome is the reversal of the dismissal decision; it is not a definitive award of the entire compensation claimed. The decision shows that allegations of late return and poor safekeeping should not be confused with other grounds for compensation linked to acquittal. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that every subparagraph j application is subject to the same time limit at every stage or may be brought without any time limit. [8]

In the compensation file, the appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf), the implementation of the decision and the payment process must also be followed separately. Current Article 142/8 regulates the finality of decisions of the regional courts of appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi); the fact that a dispute subject to the former regime was reviewed by the Court of Cassation in 2026 does not show that an appeal to the Court of Cassation is available in all new files. The notification of a final compensation decision for payment and the administrative payment process under Article 142/10 must also be distinguished from direct enforcement proceedings. [1] [4] [8]

An effective application must be built item by item and claim by claim

Objection, return and compensation have different purposes. The first addresses the lawfulness of the decision ordering the measure, the second whether continued holding of the item can be maintained, and the third the damage and redress. Although the same documents may be used, the claims should not be limited to a single vague sentence such as “the seizure should be lifted.”

This file preparation serves not only the attorney’s drafting of a petition but also the choice of the correct measure and route of application. Where necessary, the main claim may be lifting and return; the alternative claim may be narrowing the scope, releasing a specific amount or an appropriate method of safekeeping. An alternative claim should not be presented as a right that will be granted in every file regardless of its basis.

The objection to the use in the criminal case of evidence alleged to have been obtained unlawfully must also be preserved separately. Lifting the seizure or handing over the item does not by itself resolve the lawfulness of the past procedure for obtaining evidence. The assessment under CMK Articles 206, 217 and 230 is a separate matter for the defense and for the review of the reasoned judgment. [1]

Related articles: Digital evidence and phone examination in criminal proceedings; Use of a bank account in fraud and the liability of the account holder; Seizure, retention and confiscation at customs; Retention or seizure of goods at the airport; Criminal Investigations, Seizure and Remedying Investor Losses in Investment Funds Under Liquidation.

Conclusion

The legal force of a seizure arises not from the fact that the property has been taken, but from the existence of the conditions that justify its taking and its continued holding. Preserving evidence is a legitimate aim; however, the safeguards of authority, procedure, ownership, private life and defense must be applied together with that aim. The measure must not turn into a punishment of indefinite duration. [1] [6] [7]

The correct approach is to identify the actual basis of the act, record times and time limits, apply to the appropriate authority, discuss lighter options and have the return decision actually implemented. If damage has arisen from unnecessary continuation, poor safekeeping or late return, the compensation route is assessed separately. Objection, return and compensation do not replace one another; they are complementary routes of legal protection with different conditions. [1] [8]

Frequently Asked Questions

Does seizure mean that the property passes to the State?

No. It is a temporary protective measure. Confiscation additionally requires statutory conditions and an appropriate decision; seizure alone is not a judgment of guilt. [1] [3]

Can the police take an item without a judge’s decision?

Under the general regime, a distinction is made between urgency, the prosecutor’s written order and, where the prosecutor cannot be reached, the written order of the senior law enforcement officer. Judicial approval periods and the different rules of special measures also apply separately. [1: Art. 127]

How are the 24 hours and 48 hours for judicial approval calculated?

A general seizure is submitted for judicial approval within 24 hours; the judge announces the decision within 48 hours of the seizure. These periods are not added together to make 72 hours. For the digital procedure under Article 134, there is a special 24-hour period for the judge’s decision. [1]

Is the period for objecting to a seizure decision seven days?

The current general period is two weeks. For decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024, the old seven-day information should not be used; the date of learning of the decision and any special provisions should be checked. [1] [4]

Is the item returned immediately once an objection is filed?

No. An objection does not automatically suspend implementation. Where necessary, suspension of execution and return are requested separately; they depend on the decision of the appropriate authority. [1: Arts. 131, 269]

If the objection period has expired, is no application possible at all?

Article 127/4 provides for judicial review and Article 131 for the possibility of return. However, these do not automatically revive an expired legal remedy period and do not suspend other time limits. [1]

Does handing over a phone count as consent to the examination of all messages?

Physical handover and the examination of digital content are assessed separately. Special authority and procedural safeguards cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that a handover took place. [1: Art. 134] [6]

Can the device be kept after a digital copy has been made?

Article 134 provides for return without delay once the necessary procedures have been completed. If a separate evidentiary or confiscation basis is asserted for the device itself, this must be separately reasoned. [1] [6]

Because of the AYM decision, can CMK Article 134 no longer be applied today?

As of October 18, 2026, the annulment has not yet entered into force. The set entry-into-force date is February 25, 2027. The law in force on the date of the act and any new legislation that may be enacted in the meantime must be monitored together. [6] [10]

Is the suspension of a bank account a definitive seizure?

No. The suspension of at most 48 hours under Article 128/A is separate from judicial seizure of the benefit that is the subject of the offense. If there is a subsequent valid judge’s decision, the end of the suspension period does not lift it automatically. [5]

Is property belonging to the suspect’s spouse or fellow shareholder automatically seized?

No. A personal or commercial relationship does not replace ownership and the link to the offense. Nevertheless, an item in the hands of another person may be subject to the measure because of its evidentiary nature or special conditions. [1] [7]

Is it necessary to wait for an acquittal to obtain a return?

Not always. If there is no longer a need for safekeeping or it has become clear that the item will not be subject to confiscation, return may be assessed even while the investigation or prosecution is ongoing. [1: Art. 131]

Does handover as custodian remove all restrictions?

No. Handover for safekeeping is subject to returning the item when required and to the other conditions of the decision. Full return and removal of the registry annotation may be separate acts. [1: Art. 132]

Can compensation be claimed from the State for an item that deteriorated during safekeeping?

If the conditions are met, yes. Failure to provide the necessary protection or late return falls within Article 141/1-j. The nature and amount of the damage and its connection with the act must be proven. [1] [7]

Is a seizure compensation claim filed with the Compensation Commission?

A seizure claim under Article 141/1-j falls, as a rule, within the High Criminal Court regime of Article 142. It should not be confused with subparagraphs e, f and l, which have been transferred to the Commission. [1] [4]

Is finality of the main criminal file a precondition for compensation?

It is not an automatic precondition for every claim. In the Court of Cassation’s decision of July 1, 2026, it was stated that finality would not be required for the specific subparagraph j claim based on late return. This does not mean that the application is not subject to any time limit. [8]

Sources and legal bases

1. Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu): In particular Arts. 34–35, 67, 121–134, 141–142, 153, 206, 217, 230, 264, 267–271 and Transitional Art. 6. Text published by the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı); assessed together with Laws No. 7499 and 7571 and the distinction concerning the entry into force of the AYM annulment. Text of the law.
2. Constitution (Anayasa), Arts. 13, 20, 35 and 36: Safeguards of property, private life, proportionality and judicial protection. The AYM’s explanations on the right of ownership; see also the relevant constitutional provisions in decisions no. [6] and [7].
3. Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Arts. 54–55: The separate nature of confiscation of items and of proceeds; for Article 54, the text adopted by the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM Genel Kurulu). The record of the initial adoption is not a consolidated text showing subsequent amendments; it has been used in this guide only with respect to the basic distinction concerning confiscation.
4. Law No. 7499: March 2, 2024; in particular the amendments to CMK Articles 142 and 268 and the transitional provisions. Text adopted by the TBMM.
5. Law No. 7571, Art. 22: December 24, 2025; addition of CMK Article 128/A. Text adopted by the TBMM.
6. AYM, E.2023/128, K.2026/36, February 12, 2026: In particular §§17–19, 42–68, 69–73 and the operative part; the dissenting opinion has been assessed separately. Official Gazette: May 25, 2026, No. 33264. Full decision record examined.
7. AYM, Hikmet Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., Application No. 2016/4557, July 4, 2019: In particular §§69–79, 86–88 and the operative part. Full decision record examined.
8. 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2025/7405, K.2026/6889, July 1, 2026: Late return, finality and CMK Article 141/1-j; reasoning and the reversal outcome. Full decision record examined.
9. Hakan Gündüz, “Suspension of the Account Containing the Benefit Obtained through the Commission of Cyber Offenses and Seizure Measures” (Bilişim Suçlarının İşlenmesi Suretiyle Elde Edilen Menfaatin Bulunduğu Hesabın Askıya Alınması ve Elkoyma Tedbirleri), Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(4), 2026, pp. 196–229, DOI: 10.32957/hacettepehdf.1872070. Institutional record and abstract. The citation is limited to the distinction between the two measures explained in the accessible abstract.
10. AYM, press release ND 15/26 of May 25, 2026: Constitutional review of norms concerning search, copying and seizure in computers, computer programs and logs. Official announcement.