A report or post being false does not, on its own, constitute the crime of false accusation. Under Article 267 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), a wrongful act that the accuser knows the target did not commit must be imputed to an identifiable person, with the aim of having legal proceedings or an administrative sanction started against them. The imputation must be made by complaint or report to the competent authorities, or through the press and broadcasting. Content that does not meet these conditions can still give rise to liability for insult or violation of personality rights. [K1]
What conditions must be met together for false accusation to arise?
A concrete act must be imputed to an identifiable person
False accusation is not the same as every lie or every disparaging remark. It is necessary to assert that a person has carried out conduct contrary to law. The imputation is not necessarily limited to a crime; conduct that may require an administrative or disciplinary sanction can also fall within its scope. By contrast, a private employer's displeasure or mere social disapproval is not the same as an administrative sanction in the sense of the law.
Writing the person's first and last name is not mandatory. If a photograph, a job title, a workplace and event details together point to a specific person, that person's identity can be understood. For example, naming the sole responsible person of a unit can make that person the target even if their name is withheld. Where the statement is directed at an indeterminate group, it must still be shown who is accused of which act.
Saying "I found this business's service to be poor" is not the same as asserting that the business's identifiable manager committed a forgery they did not commit. However, the second statement is not automatically false accusation either; the conditions of knowledge, purpose and the route of notification are examined separately. [K1]
It must be known that the imputation is untrue
The law requires that the person knew the act was not committed by the target. Reporting an event believed to be true to the competent authority, by setting out the available indications, does not turn into false accusation merely because it cannot later be verified. Careless research, a mistaken assessment or a source error must be distinguished from knowingly making a false imputation.
This distinction does not remove the press's duty of research. Insufficient verification may lead to private-law liability or to the assessment of another offence. However, one cannot move directly from inadequate research to the conclusion that the person "knew it was untrue" in terms of false accusation. The information level at the time of posting, earlier correspondence, known contrary documents and the chronology of events are assessed together. [K1, K12]
There must be a purpose of triggering legal proceedings or an administrative sanction
Alongside general intent, TCK Article 267 requires a specific purpose: to have the target subjected to investigation and prosecution, or to have them face an administrative sanction. The existence of only a wish to cause hurt, to criticise harshly or to humiliate cannot be used to presume this specific purpose.
Tagging competent institutions, directly calling for punishment, forwarding fabricated documents to the relevant authorities, or turning the same imputation into a complaint at the same time may be important in the assessment. Nevertheless, a single tag, word or past hostility is not conclusive proof. The strongest defence of the other party may be to show that they made a good-faith notification based on factual grounds, or that there was no purpose of triggering a sanction. [K1, K12]
The imputation must be made through one of the routes set out in the law
Notification or complaint to the competent authority, and press and broadcasting, are alternatives. The fact that a public post has not also been sent to the prosecutor's office does not exclude false accusation if the other conditions are present. For the basic offence to be complete, it is not necessary for an investigation to be opened against the victim or for a punishment to be imposed; the consequences that arise matter for aggravated liability. [K1]
How are social media, private messages and reposts assessed?
The definition of press and broadcasting in TCK Article 6 covers electronic mass communication tools as well. Public posts, videos and publications that reach the public can be assessed within this framework. However, the name of the application used does not on its own determine the result. The account's access settings, whether a group is open, the recipient circle and the manner in which the content spread must be examined.
A private message between two people is not correctly treated as false accusation committed through the press and broadcasting. For closed groups too, there is no definite threshold based solely on the number of members. On the other hand, if a message is sent to the competent authority as a notification of an unlawful act, the other alternative route may come into play. The absence of false accusation does not mean that insult or other unlawful conduct in a private message will go unpunished.
A person who quotes a post is responsible for the context in which they relay the content and for their own intent. Relaying something in order to show that it is false is distinct from adopting the imputation and spreading it to a new audience. The statement "I got it from someone else" does not in itself provide protection. Conversely, a mere "like" cannot automatically be treated as false accusation; the meaning of the concrete conduct and all elements of the offence must be shown.
In the case of a news website, the responsibility of the author, the responsible editor and other persons concerned cannot be built on a single title. Where they can be applied together with the personal liability provisions of the TCK, Article 11 of the Press Law No. 5187 (Basın Kanunu) is also examined. Working for an organisation, or being the owner of the account on which a news item was published, does not make it unnecessary to investigate who made the post. [K1, K4]
How do false accusation, insult and fabrication of an offence differ?
| Legal assessment | Distinguishing point | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|
| False accusation, TCK Article 267 | A known unlawful act that did not occur is attributed to an identifiable person, for the purpose of triggering a sanction. | Untruth, knowledge, purpose and the route of notification are examined together. |
| Insult, TCK Article 125 | An imputation or abusive language that attacks honour, dignity and reputation. | An assessment may be made separately even without the special purpose of false accusation. |
| Fabrication of an offence, TCK Article 271 | An offence known not to have been committed is reported to the competent authority, or traces are fabricated to create an investigation. | Targeting a specific innocent person is decisive in distinguishing it from false accusation. |
| Attack on personality rights, Turkish Civil Code (TMK) Articles 24–25 | A publication violates personality values without a ground of lawfulness. | Protective and compensation routes may arise even without a criminal conviction. |
Discussing several provisions for the same event does not mean that the penalties will necessarily be added together. The number of acts, whether the statements can be separated from each other, special provisions and the rules on concurrence are assessed. In particular, the views that "every statement containing an accusation is false accusation" or that "if false accusation cannot be proven, no application can be made" are incorrect. [K1, K5]
Where does the right to report and to criticise end?
Freedom of expression and press freedom, protected under Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution, are assessed together with the honour and reputation protected under Article 17 of the Constitution. In the Constitutional Court's (AYM) case law on freedom of expression, the public interest of the debate, the position of the target, the context of the statement, its factual basis, the language used and its consequences matter. Persons who assume public duties may be expected to tolerate wider criticism; however, this does not protect deliberately fabricated accusations without limit. [K6]
Accurately reporting that an investigation exists is different from presenting the allegation in it as established fact. The headline, image, social media announcement and news text must be assessed together. Where cautious language is used in the text, announcing in the headline that the offence was definitely committed may still cause a problem. Adding a question mark also does not automatically remove an imputation that arises from the content as a whole.
A practical method for a publisher is: to investigate the reliability of the source, to keep the documents in hand, to separate the allegation from the verified fact, to give a fitting place to the response of the person concerned and to correct the content as developments occur. These steps do not provide automatic immunity; they make it possible to assess the information, purpose and care at the date of publication.
For related details, see our articles on statements and questioning in a criminal investigation and insufficient evidence and acquittal in criminal cases.
What is the penalty for false accusation and what are its aggravating consequences?
Under TCK Article 267(1), the basic penalty is imprisonment from one to four years. Committing the offence on social media is not by itself a separately defined increase in penalty; press and broadcasting is one of the alternative ways the basic offence can be committed. [K1]
| Situation | Legal consequence |
|---|---|
| Basic form of the offence | 1–4 years' imprisonment. |
| Fabricating the material traces and evidence of the act | The basic penalty is increased by half; 1 year 6 months to 6 years, subject to the other provisions. |
| Where the victim, who did not commit the act, is subjected to a protective measure other than detention and arrest | Under the conditions of Article 267(3), the penalty determined under the preceding paragraphs is increased by half. |
| Where the victim is detained or arrested under the same conditions | The person making the false accusation is held liable as an indirect perpetrator of the offence of deprivation of liberty. |
| Where the victim is sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment or life imprisonment | 20–30 years' imprisonment under Article 267(5). |
| Where enforcement of the imprisonment under the fifth paragraph begins | The penalty to be imposed under the fifth paragraph is increased by half under Article 267(6). |
For example, if both the fabrication of physical evidence and the conditions of the protective measure in the third paragraph are present, the range after the two successive half-increases becomes 2 years 3 months to 9 years, without applying other individualisation provisions. It cannot be assumed that this increase is present in every file. The causal link between the accusation and the measure, and the reasoning of the relevant decision, must be examined.
The former provision under which the penalty was calculated as two-thirds of a fixed-term prison sentence is no longer in force. The phrase in TCK Article 267(5) was annulled by the Constitutional Court in its decision E.2013/14, K.2013/56 of 10.04.2013. The annulment took effect on 10.06.2014. Article 267(7) is also a provision that has been annulled. Automatic calculations based on old texts cannot be made. [K2, K3]
As regards the basic offence, the application of institutions such as deferment of the sentence, alternative sanctions or deferment of the announcement of the verdict depends on the concrete penalty, the person's circumstances, the date of the decision and the current conditions. Generalisations such as "no penalty is imposed for a first incident" or "prison is certain" are incorrect. The publication of a conviction for false accusation through the press and broadcasting in the same or an equivalent media organ, with its cost recovered from the convicted person, is regulated in Article 267(9). [K1]
How is false accusation proven and which evidence should be preserved?
Proof must answer three separate questions: What was published, who published it, and what did the person knowingly do, and for what purpose? A screenshot contributes to the first question; on its own, it may not resolve the other two.
• The full link to the post, the account name, where possible the unchanging account identifier, and the time of publication and of recording should be saved.
• The headline, text, images, video, comments and the chain of quotations should be preserved together with their context. Cutting out only the accusing sentence may weaken the defence and the proof.
• Documents that refute the imputation and correspondence showing that the poster knew of them should be grouped separately. Information obtained after the post should not be substituted for the information available at the time of posting.
• Where there is a risk of deletion, a lawful record, a notarial record, a request for preservation of evidence or the preservation of the relevant digital records in the investigation should be requested, depending on the circumstances. A record of this kind does not establish the truth of the content or the identity of the person using the account.
• In an allegation of montage or of audio and video produced by artificial intelligence, the original file, metadata, the method of acquisition and the chain of examination are important. The score of a verification application does not, on its own, replace an expert examination.
Obtaining evidence by unlawfully entering someone else's account, obtaining a password or unlawfully seizing private correspondence is not a method of gathering evidence. Under Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), lawfully obtained evidence is the essential criterion. The statement "I did it for proof" does not make all secret recordings or accesses lawful. Where the perpetrator cannot be identified, an application may be made against an unknown person; the investigation is requested without accepting that the account holder's identity is the same as the actual user. [K7]
How do the complaint, investigation and lawsuit process work?
The content of the application must be made concrete
In an application to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Cumhuriyet başsavcılığı) or to law enforcement, the chronology of events and the content of each post must be explained. Rather than merely saying "they falsely accused me", the act imputed, why it is untrue, the facts showing that the other party knew this and the grounds for the purpose of triggering a sanction should be set out. Where the perpetrator is unknown, this should be clearly stated; the accounts and records to be investigated should be shown.
The prosecutor collects evidence both for and against the suspect. Where there is sufficient suspicion, an indictment is brought; where there is not, or where prosecution is not possible, a decision of non-prosecution comes into question. The basic form of false accusation is, as a rule, heard by the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi); serious consequences and the classification of the offence may change the competent court. As regards territorial jurisdiction, the place where the offence was committed and the special rules on the press are separately examined. [K7, K8]
A decision of acquittal or non-prosecution does not automatically prove false accusation
The reasoning of the earlier decision is as important as its outcome. Insufficient evidence is not the same as proof that the imputation was fabricated knowingly. The documents on which the decision rests, earlier statements and the information available at the date of the post must be assessed together. There is no general rule that one must always wait for an acquittal before applying for false accusation; the basic offence and the aggravated paragraphs that depend on the outcome are distinguished.
In its decision of 15.12.2025, E.2024/26237, K.2025/10608, the Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 8. Ceza Dairesi) upheld a conviction established after the omitted investigation had been completed. The decision does not show that every unverified allegation is automatically a crime. In its decision of 06.10.2025, E.2025/1289, K.2025/7339, the same chamber found unlawful the rejection of an objection to a decision of non-prosecution where the account and telephone user, the messages and linked files had not been investigated. That second decision is not a finding of guilt; it concerns the need to complete the investigation. Full-text reproductions of the decisions are shown in the sources. [K9]
Time limits must not be confused with one another
| Step | Time limit or basis | What to pay attention to |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal complaint for false accusation | The offence is prosecuted ex officio; the six-month period for complaint does not apply. | Application should be made without delay to prevent loss of evidence. |
| Limitation period for prosecution of the basic form | As a rule 8 years; Article 267(8) of the TCK sets a special starting point. | The starting point is the date on which it is established that the victim did not commit the act. Aggravated cases, suspension and interruption change the result. |
| Objection to a decision of non-prosecution | Two weeks from notification of the decision. | Application is made to the competent criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), showing the evidence not collected and the incomplete investigations. |
| Right of reply and correction under Article 14 of the Press Law | As a rule, sent within 2 months from publication. | The scope of the law and the later judicial application periods are separately assessed. |
| Criminal action under Article 26 of the Press Law | 4 months for daily periodicals and internet news sites; 6 months for other printed works. | These are special periods for bringing an action; their starting point and exceptions are determined under Article 26. |
| Compensation for tort | Under Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), 2 years from learning of the damage and the person liable for compensation; 10 years from the act. | Longer criminal limitation periods and other special provisions are reserved. |
The special periods in the Press Law do not automatically apply to every social media account. The scope of the Press Law's coverage of internet news sites and the TCK's definition of electronic mass communication are not the same. A four- or six-month period for a criminal case does not mean that the affected person must necessarily wait that long. False accusation is not within the scope of settlement (uzlaştırma); withdrawal of the complaint does not automatically end the public prosecution. [K1, K4, K7, K10]
For the purposes of Article 26 of the Press Law, the period runs from the delivery of the printed work to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office; for an internet news site, it runs from the notice of crime relating to the news item. Where the printed work has not been delivered, the date on which the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office learned of the act is taken as the basis. There are special starting-point rules for situations such as the responsible editor notifying the author later, or publication taking place despite objection to the publication. For this reason, the dates of publication, delivery, notice and notification should each be documented separately. [K4]
Removal of content, right of reply and compensation
A criminal application does not automatically secure the removal of a post or the payment of compensation. Different routes can be planned together depending on the intended outcome.
Protection of personality rights: Under Articles 24–25 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), prevention, cessation or a declaration of unlawfulness of the attack may be requested; where the conditions exist, correction or publication of the judgment may also be requested. In urgent cases, the conditions for interim injunctions under Article 389 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) are assessed. The measure requested must be directed at specific content and must be proportionate to freedom of expression. [K5, K11]
Current distinction on access blocking: The former Article 9 of Law No. 5651 on Internet Publications, which concerned personality rights, was annulled by the Constitutional Court in its decision E.2020/76, K.2023/172; the annulment took effect on 10.10.2024. Application templates that present the former provision as still in force should not be relied on. Article 9/A, which concerns the privacy of private life, is subject to separate conditions; not every injury to reputation falls within it. Where this route is used, the special provision requires that the application be submitted to a criminal judgeship of peace within 24 hours and that the judge decide within 48 hours. [K13, K14]
Reply and correction: For publications within the scope of the Press Law, Article 14 may also apply. Where a reply is refused or published contrary to the procedure, there is a judicial application period of 15 days from the relevant starting point. A notice to the social media platform does not replace this statutory route. [K4]
Compensation: Under Articles 49 and 58 of the TBK, unlawfulness, damage, fault and adequate causation are assessed. A claim of loss of income should be substantiated with contracts, cancellations and income records; non-pecuniary effects should be made concrete through the extent of the dissemination and the features of the event. It cannot be said that the full amount claimed will be awarded, or that a lawsuit cannot be brought without a criminal conviction. The relationship between criminal and civil proceedings is assessed within the framework of Article 74 of the TBK. [K10]
Notifying the platform, applying to the publisher, requesting removal from the source and requesting removal from search results are different procedures. Removing a search result does not delete the source page; a refusal by the platform does not bind the court's assessment. These applications do not automatically suspend the statutory time limits.
Does deleting the post or apologising remove the penalty?
Deleting a post and apologising do not automatically remove an offence that has already been committed. Effective repentance under Article 269 of the TCK requires withdrawal from the false accusation and the fulfilment of the conditions of the relevant stage. For an offence committed through the press and broadcasting, withdrawal is also required to be published by the same method. The idea that merely making the post invisible, or apologising to the victim by private message, is sufficient should not be assumed. [K1]
| Stage at which the false accusation is withdrawn | Reduction under Article 269 |
|---|---|
| Before an investigation begins against the victim, whether judicial or administrative | Four-fifths of the penalty is reduced. |
| Before prosecution of the victim begins | Three-quarters of the penalty is reduced. |
| Before judgment | Up to two-thirds of the penalty may be reduced. |
| After conviction, before enforcement | Up to half of the penalty may be reduced. |
| After enforcement of the sentence has begun | Up to one-third of the penalty may be reduced. |
| Where the imputation requires only an administrative sanction, and taking the other conditions into account | Up to one-half before the sanction is imposed; up to one-third after it is applied. |
The mandatory reduction language of the first two paragraphs must be distinguished from the discretionary reduction in the later paragraphs. The stages are linked to the process concerning the victim; they are not determined solely by looking at the file of the person making the false accusation. In the case of an imputation that requires only an administrative sanction, the first paragraph concerning withdrawal before an investigation begins must not be overlooked. Where several rows are selected, the reductions cannot be applied cumulatively as a matter of course.
Conclusion
In the assessment of false accusation in news and social media posts, the centre is not how disturbing the words are, but a concrete imputation, known untruth, the purpose of triggering a sanction and the statutory route of notification. The same event may have different consequences for freedom of expression, insult, personality rights, criminal procedure and compensation. For the details of the subject, see the article on the right to complain and the crime of false accusation.
For the victim, the right starting point is to put the post in its context and to set out the conditions of each route of application separately. For the publisher and the person sharing, it is important to separate the allegation from the verified fact, to keep sources and to make any necessary correction visibly. No single development, such as acquittal, non-prosecution, deletion or apology, automatically determines all legal consequences.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may look at our criminal law services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is publishing a false news item always false accusation?
No. In addition to the item being wrong, the conditions include knowledge that it is untrue, an imputation of an unlawful act to an identifiable person, a special purpose and the statutory route of notification. Other types of liability are assessed separately.
Can a post made without naming anyone be false accusation?
It can. If a photograph, a job title or details of the event make the person's identity understandable, not writing a name does not provide sufficient protection. The other elements must also be present.
If no investigation was opened against me, can I still apply?
Yes. For the basic offence, the imputation does not have to lead to an investigation. In the application, knowledge and the purpose of triggering a sanction must be explained with concrete facts.
Is a WhatsApp message always treated as press and broadcasting?
No. A private correspondence, a closed group and a publication reaching the public are not the same. The recipient circle, access and transmission method are examined, and a notification made to the competent authority is assessed separately.
If I was acquitted, will the complainant always be punished for false accusation?
No. The reasoning for the acquittal and the knowledge and purpose of the person who made the earlier application are examined. The fact that an allegation could not be proven is not evidence that it was fabricated knowingly.
Is a screenshot alone sufficient?
Not in every case. Depending on the event, further records may be needed regarding the integrity of the content, who the real user of the account is, the time of publication and intent. The full link and original files must be preserved.
Must I file a complaint within six months for false accusation?
Because the offence of false accusation is prosecuted ex officio, the six-month complaint period does not apply. The limitation period for prosecution, the special press periods and the periods for other routes of application are assessed separately.
What is the time limit for objecting to a decision of non-prosecution?
Under the current Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), it is two weeks from notification. The objection must explain which evidence has not been collected and why the investigation should be extended.
Does deleting the post and withdrawing the complaint close the file?
No, not automatically. The offence is prosecuted ex officio. The effect of withdrawal on the penalty is examined under the stage and publication conditions of Article 269.
Can compensation and removal of content be sought while the criminal case is ongoing?
Where the conditions exist, the relevant civil routes may be applied to. A criminal complaint does not automatically satisfy those claims; the court may need to assess the relationship between the files.
Sources and legal bases
K1 — Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (Türk Ceza Kanunu): Articles 6, 20–22, 66–67, 73, 75, 109, 125, 267–269 and 271. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
K2 — Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi): 10.04.2013, E.2013/14, K.2013/56; RG (Official Gazette) 10.12.2013/28847. Annulment of the phrase on fixed-term imprisonment in TCK Article 267(5). Decision record.
K3 — Constitutional Court: 17.11.2011, E.2010/115, K.2011/154; RG 17.03.2012/28236. Annulment of TCK Article 267(7). Decision record.
K4 — Press Law No. 5187 (Basın Kanunu): Articles 1–2, 11, 14, 26–27. Consolidated text, LEXPERA.
K5 — Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu): Articles 24–25. Legislation Information System.
K6 — Constitutional Court: Ali Rıza Üçer (2) (GK), Application No. 2013/8598, 02.07.2015; approach to the protection of freedom of expression and of honour and reputation. Decision record. The Constitutional Court's official precedent-setting decision statements were used in this article.
K7 — Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu): Articles 12, 158, 160, 170, 172–173, 217, 223 and 253. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
K8 — Law No. 5235: Articles 11–12; duties of the criminal courts. Legislation Information System.
K9 — Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 8. Ceza Dairesi): 15.12.2025, E.2024/26237, K.2025/10608 and 06.10.2025, E.2025/1289, K.2025/7339. Full-text reproductions, Hukuki Haber, 12.10.2026. The publication consulted is a secondary source.
K10 — Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu): Articles 49, 58, 72 and 74. Legislation Information System.
K11 — Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu): Article 389 et seq.; Article 400 et seq. Legislation Information System.
K12 — Akif Yıldırım: "İftira Suçu" (The Crime of False Accusation), Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2007, issue 69, pp. 177–210. For the elements of the offence, later legislative amendments and annulment decisions were also taken into account. Article.
K13 — Constitutional Court: 11.10.2023, E.2020/76, K.2023/172; RG 10.01.2024/32425. Decision record.
K14 — Law No. 5651 on Internet Publications: annulment of Article 9 and Article 9/A. Consolidated text, LEXPERA.
K15 — Özer Alişan Ekren: "Bir haber veya sosyal medya paylaşımı ne zaman iftira sayılır?" (When is a news item or social media post considered false accusation?), Hukuki Haber, 12.10.2026. Examined for comparison of subject and scope; the former criminal penalty formula on fixed-term imprisonment was not adopted as the current provision. Source article.