Who supervises the financial markets in Türkiye?
There is no single chain of command
The Turkish financial system consists of banks, exchanges, investment funds, portfolio management companies, investment firms, payment and electronic money institutions, insurance and pension institutions, and registration and clearing infrastructures. The legislature has assigned different risks to different authorities. For this reason, the SPK is not superior to the BDDK, and the BDDK is not superior to the SPK. Borsa Istanbul is a market operator organised as a joint stock company; it is not an administrative department of the SPK. Where a transaction involves both banking and investment services, different statutory supervisory regimes may overlap activity by activity.
Regulation, surveillance, supervision and sanctions distinguished
Regulation
Regulation means setting general norms and conditions, such as authorisation to operate, capital, reporting, disclosure and trading rules, within the scope of statutory authority.
Surveillance
Surveillance is the activity of monitoring market data, unusual orders and risk indicators so as to open a review where necessary. An unusual price movement is not, on its own, proof of an offence.
Supervision
Supervision means examining the compliance of institutions and transactions with legislation on the basis of documents, records and accounts. It cannot be understood to mean that every regulatory authority must approve every transaction in advance.
Measures and sanctions
Under the conditions set by law, these may include administrative fines, restrictions on transactions or activities, measures concerning licences and referral to judicial authorities. An administrative sanction does not mean that compensation will automatically be paid to the investor.
Comparative table of institutional functions
| Authority/institution | Core function | Limit of responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Treasury and Finance | Treasury and fiscal policies and statutory organisational duties | Does not take every specific decision of the independent authorities |
| SPK | Regulation, surveillance and supervision of capital markets | Is not the investment manager or loss guarantor of every fund |
| BDDK | Banking and other institutions subject to it by law | Is not a superior authority over the SPK |
| TCMB | Monetary policy, payment systems and payment/e-money institutions | Is not the sole supervisor of all capital markets transactions |
| Borsa Istanbul | Operation of the exchange market and related market surveillance | Is not the portfolio custodian of all funds |
| MASAK | Financial intelligence, prevention of money laundering, suspicious transaction reporting | A report is not a conviction or a final finding of an offence |
| SEDDK | Insurance and private pensions | The SPK may also hold powers over the capital markets dimension of a fund |
| KGK | Independent audit and financial reporting standards | Is not a prior approval of every commercial transaction |
| Takasbank | Clearing, custody and the relevant roles in the TEFAS infrastructure | Is not the manager or general guarantor of every fund |
| MKK | Book-entry registration and investor entitlement infrastructure | Is not the manager of all assets in a fund portfolio |
| TMSF | Deposit insurance, bank resolution and special statutory duties | Is not a general investment loss insurer |
| YTM | Investor compensation and special payment duties under the law | Does not guarantee against a fall in prices |
Boundaries of duty between the Treasury, the SPK and the BDDK
The place of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance
The Ministry carries out fiscal and treasury policies and the administrative duties conferred on it by law. The institutional relationship does not mean that every review, decision or sanction of an independent regulatory authority is issued by the Minister. When liability is to be attributed to a public authority, the specific statutory duty, the power and the actual access to information must each be determined separately.
What does the SPK supervise?
Under the Capital Markets Law No. 6362, the Board holds powers of regulation, surveillance, supervision and sanction over publicly held companies, exchanges, investment firms, portfolio management companies, investment funds and related capital markets activities. SPK supervision does not replace internal control obligations. Nor does a fund's loss, on its own, prove a service fault on the part of the SPK.
What does the BDDK supervise?
Within the framework of Article 93 of the Banking Law No. 5411, the BDDK undertakes duties directed at the confidence in and stability of the banking system and at the financial structure and activities of the institutions concerned. As to capital markets activities that a bank carries out as a fund distributor or as an authorised portfolio custodian, the SPK's special powers are also assessed separately. That an institution is a bank does not necessarily mean that the transaction under review is a purely banking transaction.
The duties of two authorities may overlap in the same event
Where an amount leaving a bank is used in an investment fund, account operation, order transmission, investment service, fund management, custody of fund assets and entitlement may each create a different plane of liability. A common set of facts does not of itself create joint or joint and several liability; the substantive legal regime to be applied must be determined.
The role of the TCMB, SEDDK, KGK and MASAK in the financial system
The TCMB and payment institutions
Within the framework of Law No. 6493, the TCMB exercises regulatory and supervisory powers over payment systems and over the relevant activities of payment and electronic money institutions. A bank transfer, a payment institution transfer and an electronic money transaction are not the same legal category. The protection of customer funds, the technical transaction records and the authority of the institution concerned are examined separately.
The SEDDK, insurance and private pensions
The SEDDK exercises the regulatory and supervisory powers arising from legislation over insurance and private pension institutions. The obligations of a pension company must not be confused with the portfolio management and custody rules of a pension fund.
The KGK and independent audit
The KGK acts within the audit regime relating to financial reporting and independent audit standards. Independent audit aims at reasonable assurance within the relevant standards; it is not a guarantee that none of the company's transactions will be unlawful. The auditor's duty of professional care, the risks identified, the procedures applied, the working papers and the link to the loss are discussed case by case.
MASAK and suspicious transaction reporting
Under Article 4 of Law No. 5549, obliged entities may be required to report to MASAK when the statutory conditions of suspicion concerning the assets involved in transactions arise. The existence of a report is not a criminal conviction; nor does its absence prove that the transaction was lawful.
Confidentiality of the report
The confidentiality of suspicious transaction reports is protected by law. It cannot be said that investors can in every case find out whether the bank has reported to MASAK; access to information may be limited by statutory secrecy and procedural provisions.
Borsa Istanbul, market surveillance and KAP disclosures
The legal status of Borsa Istanbul
Borsa Istanbul A.Ş. operates the relevant exchange markets of the capital market and carries out surveillance and reporting activities under its own regulations. It is legally distinct from the supervision that the SPK carries out as a public authority.
Unusual price, volume and order transactions
Price movements, order entry and cancellation patterns, related account movements and trade times may be the subject of review. A rise or fall in price alone is not sufficient for an allegation of market fraud; the statutory elements of the offence must be proved separately.
The surveillance–reporting–intervention chain
In an allegation of negligent surveillance, it must be established when which signal arose, which records the responsible unit accessed, which reporting obligation arose and which measure was legally possible. A general allegation of fault cannot be made without access to information and authority.
The evidentiary function of KAP disclosures
Financial statements, prospectuses and material event disclosures published on the Public Disclosure Platform (KAP) may carry evidentiary value as to date and content. Publication does not mean that an unconditional state guarantee has been given to the content of every disclosure. Comparing the time of a disclosure with the time of the investment order and of the transaction matters in claims of misleading information.
Who manages, holds and supervises investment funds?
The fund as a separate pool of assets
Under Article 52 of Law No. 6362, an investment fund is a separate pool of assets created in accordance with statutory rules. That the founder's or custodian's own debts are not mixed with fund assets is the basic foundation of investor protection. Recording fund participation shares and safekeeping the securities in a fund portfolio are not the same operation.
The role of the portfolio management company
The portfolio management company bears obligations of management of investment decisions, care, loyalty, risk control and regulatory compliance under the relevant fund documents and the law. Ordinary market losses of a fund do not give rise to automatic liability. By contrast, an unauthorised transfer of assets, a conflict of interest, a related-party transaction without economic justification or a departure from the fund strategy may be examined separately.
The portfolio custodian does not merely hold the vault
Under Article 56 of Law No. 6362, the custodian has obligations, within the limits set by the relevant legislation, to control the issue and redemption of shares, the valuation calculation, instructions concerning fund assets and other transactions. Portfolio management and custody are carried out by different legal entities. This independent control does not remove the manager's liability.
The limit of the custodian's liability
For legal liability, the duty breached, the loss and the causal link are examined. It cannot be claimed that the custodian undertakes to compensate every market price fall; equally, the fact that it is separate from fund management does not make a statutory failure of control on its part immaterial.
Fund rules, prospectus and investor information form
These documents are examined for the fund's investment strategy, limits on its activities and the risks disclosed to the investor. The existence of the documents does not, on its own, prove that a transaction was in fact made in the interest of the fund. The date of the last amendment and the version in force on the date of the transaction should be compared.
Related articles: Action for Damages for Investment Fund Losses; Investor Rights in Hedge Funds.
Takasbank, TEFAS, MKK and distributing banks
The different capacities in which Takasbank acts
Central clearing, the relevant custody and the operation of TEFAS are different legal activities. That Takasbank operates market infrastructure does not mean that it is the investment manager or loss guarantor of all funds.
Buying funds through TEFAS
TEFAS provides infrastructure for the distribution and purchase and sale of fund participation shares. Trading on the platform does not show that the fund's price or return is guaranteed.
MKK and entitlement
The MKK's records of an investor's fund shares may be basic data in determining entitlement and certain transaction dates. By contrast, the custodian's obligation as to which asset in the fund's whole portfolio is held and how is a different matter.
The distributing bank's separate capacity
A distributing bank may undertake obligations connected with the investment order, customer information and the investment service. Its acting as an intermediary in the sale does not by itself make it the fund's founder, manager or custodian. Where the same bank holds more than one capacity, each is examined on a separate legal basis.
Professional client and qualified investor: the regulation of 26 October 2026
The difference between three statuses
The concepts of retail client, professional client and qualified investor are not the same. Protective obligations in investment services and the conditions for access to certain funds may differ. A high-value investment does not remove all disclosure or care duties.
Board decision No. 75/1899
By the SPK's decision of 26.10.2026, No. 75/1899, the financial asset criterion for an on-request professional client was raised from TL 10 million to TL 50 million, and the transaction volume criterion from TL 5 million to TL 25 million. The qualified investor conditions have also been updated by cross-reference; the earlier exception for real estate and venture capital investment funds has been removed. Official SPK announcement.
Re-documenting a previously acquired status
In the statements on how institutions are to apply the SPK's principle decision, it is stated that investors who acquired the status earlier must document their current financial conditions in writing or electronically, and that, where the necessary documentation is not provided, the result may be that they can place only sell orders in instruments open solely to qualified investors. The date and status record should be examined transaction by transaction. İş Yatırım implementation announcement.
Distinguishing past transactions from new ones
The new thresholds do not automatically render every transaction completed in the past unlawful. The date of the transaction, the period in which the classification was made, the transitional arrangement and the nature of the service provided must be investigated together.
The 2026 amendments to the investment fund guide and the 31 January 2027 deadline
The guide update of 28 August 2026
The SPK has announced its regulatory process concerning fund portfolios, concentration and certain related-party risks. The authority's general risk assessment is not a final criminal accusation against a particular company or manager. SPK statement on the guide regulation process.
The compliance timetable of 26 October 2026
For certain portfolio and investment limits in Fund Guide 4.3, the SPK has changed the earlier phased timetable and announced 31.01.2027 as the full and final compliance date. Some exceptions have been removed, while the same comprehensive provisions in Communiqué III-52.1 are preserved. SPK announcement of 26 October.
The transition period does not suspend all obligations
The transition period for certain portfolio limits does not of itself postpone other duties such as loyalty, care, conflicts of interest, internal control, record-keeping and custody. For unlawfulness, which provision was in force on the date of the transaction concerned, and which exception applied, are determined.
Internal control, risk management, independent audit and related-party transactions
Operational transaction and control responsibility
The unit carrying out a transaction, the risk and compliance functions, internal control, internal audit, the board of directors and the independent auditor do not undertake the same duty. The negligence attributed to each person must be tied to a specific job description, access to information, authority and the date of the transaction.
Review of related parties and of economic purpose
In payments, loans, purchases, sales and transfers made by the fund in favour of a related person, the counter-performance, the price, market conditions, the real economic purpose and the interest of the fund's investors are examined. The existence of a contract in the documents does not prove that the transaction was necessarily lawful.
The evidentiary value of the independent audit report
The type of opinion in the report, the audit period, the limitations stated and the risks identified are assessed. If a breach of the auditor's professional obligations is alleged, the loss and the causal link must also be shown separately.
Capital markets offences and administrative violations
Insider trading – SPKn Article 106
Trading with the statutory elements on the basis of information that has not been made public and is capable of affecting the price or value or an investment decision may be examined under this offence. Access to the information, its use and its relationship to the transaction must be proved.
Market fraud – SPKn Article 107
Transaction-based
This requires that orders, purchases and sales, order amendments/cancellations and account patterns be assessed together with the purpose and other elements of the relevant type of offence.
Information-based
The use of misleading information, statements or news within the conditions set by law, and the relevant elements of benefit, are examined. Who actually carried out the alleged conduct must be determined.
Market-disrupting acts – SPKn Article 104
Market-disrupting acts under the administrative sanction regime are not identical to the criminal offence in Article 107. The administrative and criminal processes in the same event, and their different evidentiary and procedural conditions, should be kept apart.
Abuse of trust in the capital markets – SPKn Article 110
In an allegation of unauthorised or off-purpose use of fund or client assets, the specific type of offence and, where necessary, the relevant provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) are discussed case by case. Not all allegations of irregularity can be brought within the same offence.
The SPK's written application – SPKn Article 115
For the investigation of certain offences in Law No. 6362, the SPK's written application may constitute a special condition of prosecution. This condition does not automatically apply to all bank fraud or to general TCK offences.
Liability arising from a public authority's failure of supervision
Supervisory power is not an unlimited guarantee
That a public authority supervises a sector does not mean that it will bear every loss of a private institution. The duty imposed by law, the specific breach, the loss and the causal link must be examined.
Article 125 of the Constitution and service fault
The administration's obligation to make good loss arising from its own acts and actions is regulated in Article 125 of the Constitution. If a service fault is relied on, the relevant statutory power, the possibility of obtaining information, the possibility of timely intervention and the judicial route are determined. General public policy liability must be distinguished from liability for a specific administrative act.
Administrative jurisdiction and private law distinguished
A claim for loss relating to the exercise of public power and the contractual/tortious liability of a bank or fund manager may be subject to different judicial routes. The conditions for bringing an action and the rules on prior application should be examined according to the type of claim.
How is legal liability determined in a financial irregularity?
The person who actually carried out and approved the transaction
The owner of the transaction, the power of representation and signature, company resolutions and the chain of instructions are examined. The existence of a title alone does not create personal criminal liability; criminal liability is personal.
The person alleged to have known and remained inactive
Inaction is assessed only in connection with a specific legal duty to act. What the person learned and when, what intervention the person could have made, and whether the measure would have affected the loss are investigated.
Fault, loss and adequate causation
Without prejudice to the details of the liability regime established by a special law, causation must be established between the breach of duty and the loss; merely appearing in the chain of transactions is not to be treated as sufficient. The existence of several responsible persons does not mean automatic joint and several liability.
Investor loss and its calculation
Market risk versus unlawful loss
A fall in a fund's price or a failure to realise the expected return is not always unlawful. A loss arising from an unauthorised transaction, misinformation, an unlawful transfer or a breach of the custody obligation is assessed differently.
Fund loss and the individual investor's loss
The total loss suffered by the fund and the investor's personal claim for receivables/damages may not be the same amount. Capital inflows, the number of shares, sales, refunds, the current value, liquidation proceeds and earlier payments are calculated together.
Double recovery and set-off
It is checked whether interim payments, recoveries, and payments made as a result of insurance or compensation relate to the same item of loss. While double payment is prevented, legally distinct items of loss are not removed without justification.
Expert examination
Expertise in accounting, financial valuation and transaction techniques may be needed; the final legal characterisation of statutory liability belongs to the judge. The expert report must be capable of being verified as to the data used and the calculation method.
What losses do the YTM and the TMSF cover?
The general protection area of the YTM
The investor compensation system under Articles 81–84 of Law No. 6362 contains special conditions for the failure to perform certain cash payment and capital markets instrument delivery obligations. General price falls, or investment advice that fails to produce the expected return, are not of themselves within the scope of compensation. Official YTM statements.
The TMSF's different legal duties
The deposit insurance and bank resolution duty does not mean that a general deposit guarantee is given to investment fund shares. The special recovery duty under Law No. 7596 is assessed separately.
Obtaining a fund from a bank is not being a depositor
An investment fund share and a bank deposit are of different legal nature. The role of the distributing bank must be separated from fund management, custody and general compensation obligations.
Related articles: Application to the Investor Compensation Center.
Law No. 7596: special liquidation of certain funds
The scope is not all funds
Law No. 7596, adopted on 22.10.2026 and published on 27.10.2026, concerns certain investment funds whose liquidation was decided by the SPK's decisions of 17.09.2026 and whose liquidation had not been completed on the date of publication of the Law. It does not create a general or permanent liquidation and liability regime for other investment funds. SPK legislation system.
Decision of 27 October 2026, No. 76/1903
The SPK has determined the liquidation and payment procedures. According to the official announcement, the relevant Tera, Pusula and Atlas Portföy funds are within scope; Ziraat Bankası is responsible for the liquidation of the relevant funds founded by Pusula and Atlas, and Türkiye İş Bankası for the relevant funds founded by Tera. Mentioning these company names does not amount to an accusation of an offence or of fault. Official SPK announcement.
Entitlement, MKK records and unexecuted orders
Participation share holders are determined by comparing the records of the institutions appointed for the liquidation with the MKK data; special provisions may apply with respect to certain TEFAS instructions regulated in the Law. The balance on a screen and a legally established right to payment are not identical in every case.
The interim payment ceiling and calculation
That the relevant calculation rules provide for an interim payment of up to TL 1,000,000 is not an unconditional commitment to pay one million lira to all investors. The net investment amount, the fund's distributable assets and the Board decision are taken into account.
Interim payment versus final payment
If distributable cash covers the total payment concerned, a final payment may be made instead of an interim payment. Participation shares are not surrendered at the time of an interim payment; surrender takes place at the final stage, and interim payments are set off against the final entitlement.
Payment priority
SPK Decision No. 76/1903 contains special distribution rules that take into account criteria such as fund types, the coverage ratio and the number of investors whose net investment amount is below TL 1 million. This does not mean that all investor claims have the same priority under general law.
Exclusion from payment
The special regulation contains provisions under which no payment is made from the liquidation and recovery account to persons who are determined by the Board to have committed, or acted together with others in committing, certain acts under SPKn Articles 104, 106 and 107, and who have been notified by the MKK to the institutions in charge of the liquidation. General suspicion alone does not result in an automatic loss of rights for all investors. The relevant determination and action must be assessed separately in law.
Unlawful removal of assets and genuine economic purpose
Article 5 of the Law contains special recovery provisions for values unlawfully removed from fund assets and for certain transactions that appear formally proper but have no genuine economic purpose and do not serve the interest of the fund. The related person, the counter-performance, the valuation and the trail of assets are important.
Primary liability and personal pursuit
The special regime provides for the primary liability for loss or damage of the founding or managing portfolio management company. For losses that cannot be recovered under the statutory conditions, the personal liability of other responsible persons may come onto the agenda; having left office does not of itself erase an act committed during the period of duty.
The TMSF, the YTM and the recovery account
The Law distributes the special duties concerning recovery and collection among institutions including the TMSF and the YTM. General deposit insurance, general YTM compensation and these special liquidation payments must not be confused with one another.
Related articles: The 2026 Investment Funds Crisis: The Legal Liability of the BDDK and the SPK; SPK Fund Liquidation: Investor Rights and the Payment Process; Which Action Is Brought Against Which Act in the 2026 Fund Liquidation?.
Supervision of crypto-asset service providers
Law No. 7518 and the SPK
In Law No. 6362, the SPK's powers over the activities of crypto-asset service providers have been regulated by the amendments of Law No. 7518. The separate areas of authorisation and obligation for the platform, custody services and other activities are determined according to the rules applicable on the date of the event.
Crypto losses are not a general guarantee
A fall in the price of a crypto asset does not of itself fall within deposit insurance or the YTM's general guarantee against investment loss. The service provider's statutory and contractual liability is investigated separately.
The evidence map in a financial irregularity
Establishing the trail of money, shares and assets
From the amount first paid in to the final account movement, bank transfers, order and cancellation records, fund participation share movements, MKK records and the custodian's asset statements should be compared.
Management and control documents
Board resolutions, powers of representation, internal control minutes, independent audit reports, risk records, KAP disclosures and the versions of the fund documents on the date of the transaction are important.
Integrity of electronic evidence
Transaction time, user/account identity, order amendment history, access logs, system clock and document integrity may require expertise. A screenshot and the original transaction record on the server may not carry the same evidentiary weight.
Document–legal issue matrix
| Group of evidence | Core point investigated |
|---|---|
| Bank transfer and account statement | Money movement, counterparty and payment |
| MKK and participation share record | Entitlement and number of shares |
| TEFAS/order records | Time, execution and cancellation of the instruction |
| Fund rules and prospectus | Investment strategy and limitations |
| Portfolio and custody records | Existence, segregation and control of assets |
| Fund valuation documents | Price/valuation method and period |
| Board/internal control report | Authority, information, intervention |
| KAP disclosure | Information learned by the public and the time |
| SPK/institutional correspondence | Surveillance, notification and decision stages |
In obtaining these documents, restrictions arising from customer/bank secrecy, trade secrets, the KVKK (Personal Data Protection Law) and judicial procedure are taken into account.
To which authority and by which legal route should an investor apply?
First application and complaint to the institution
Depending on the type of dispute, a written application to the relevant bank or investment firm, the SPK for breaches of capital markets legislation, the BDDK as to banking legislation, and the processes of other relevant authorities come into play. An administrative complaint does not always replace a claim for personal compensation; it should not be assumed that it stops time limits automatically.
The TSPB Customer Disputes Arbitration Committee
The TSPB mechanism is considered for disputes concerning concrete material loss/compensation arising from capital markets activities of member institutions other than exchange transactions, where the relevant conditions are met. The application is first submitted to the member institution and the date of confirmation is recorded. TSPB Dispute Center.
The thirty-day response and the sixty-day application
The institution's response period is 30 days from confirmation. If a response has been given earlier, the Committee may be applied to within 60 days from receipt of the response; if none has been given, within 60 days following the expiry of the 30-day period. An application made more than five years after the date of the transaction/act is not examined by the Committee. These periods are not identical to the limitation periods for general actions for damages.
A claim for concrete loss
Instead of an abstract request for supervision, a clear claim for loss and compensation in accordance with the relevant procedure should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee. The conditions of authority and admissibility are checked in the application against the current regulation.
Exchange transactions and the Borsa Istanbul dispute route
The special dispute mechanism for exchange transactions and the remit of the TSPB Committee must be kept apart. What matters is in which market and within which legal service the transaction was carried out.
Court action, mediation and administrative jurisdiction
In claims for receivables/damages based on contract, tort or special statutory liability, jurisdiction and venue, standing to be sued, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation and limitation are examined. In allegations of service fault arising from public power, administrative jurisdiction and special prior applications may come into play. A single route of application does not apply to all events.
Interim legal protection and criminal investigation
Interim injunction, precautionary attachment and preservation of evidence are subject to different conditions. In respect of capital markets offences, the special investigation condition in SPKn Article 115 is taken into account where it exists. A criminal complaint and a civil claim for damages are separate claims.
Dispute–application matrix
| Allegation | Route to be assessed first | Critical distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Banking transaction | Application to the bank, relevant alternative route / judicial action | A bank account and an investment service are different |
| Exchange transaction | Borsa Istanbul dispute mechanism | Not to be confused with the TSPB Committee |
| Off-exchange investment service | Application to the member institution, TSPB if the conditions are met | 30/60 days and the five-year condition |
| Capital markets violation | SPK administrative complaint | Personal compensation is not awarded automatically |
| Breach by the fund manager | Private law/special law liability | Loss and causation |
| Custodian's failure of control | Relevant liability action | Scope of the statutory control |
| Public authority's service fault | Administrative application and judicial assessment | Public power and limit of duty |
| Fund within Law No. 7596 | Special liquidation and payment process | Limited statutory scope |
Related articles: How Is a Complaint Filed with the SPK?.
A practical method for reviewing the chain of liability
Define the transaction alleged
An unauthorised fund transfer, an incorrect valuation, manipulation, a breach of a client instruction, an incorrect disclosure or a failure of custody control are separate legal events.
Determine the date of the transaction and the norm applied
The version of the law, communiqué, guide, transitional provision and contract/fund document in force on that date should be used. The 2026 fund and investor regulations cannot be applied mechanically to past transactions.
Examine information, authority and opportunity to intervene
Who learned what on which date, what that person was obliged to check, for which measure that person had authority and the effect of inaction on the loss must be separated out.
Link the loss and the legal claim
It must be determined which item of loss the breach caused, the effect of earlier recoveries and which judicial/alternative route is appropriate.
Review chain: Transaction → Record → Control → Warning → Notification → Supervision → Decision → Measure → Loss → Liability → Compensation/recovery. It is not assumed that every event contains all of these steps.
Conclusion: what matters in financial supervision is not the authority but the legal duty and the evidence
In Türkiye, financial supervision is distributed by law among regulatory authorities, market operators, banks, fund managers, custodians and registration infrastructures. The allegation that a person took the money and the question of who was obliged to supervise the transaction concerned are different questions. Just as supervisory power is not an automatic guarantee for every loss, a concrete breach of a supervisory duty cannot be disregarded merely by invoking institutional titles.
In protecting investors, the right way is to review transaction and fund records chronologically, to separate the capacity in which each institution acted, to identify the special norm in force, to prove the loss and causation, and to turn to the appropriate administrative, alternative or judicial application without a loss of rights. The special liquidation regime under Law No. 7596 does not replace the general legal regime of all investment funds; it applies to the limited funds defined in the Law.
In sum, financial liability rests on three questions: Who did what? Who should have known what and performed which duty? Which transaction or omission legally caused which loss?
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the SPK or the BDDK the higher authority?
Neither is the general superior authority of the other. Jurisdiction is determined by whether the transaction is of a capital markets or a banking nature.
Is Borsa Istanbul a department of the SPK?
No. Borsa Istanbul is a market operator organised as a joint stock company and is subject to the SPK's regulation/supervision in respect of the capital market.
Who supervises an investment fund?
The SPK's public supervision, the portfolio manager's duties and the portfolio custodian's statutory control obligations are separate from one another.
Is a fund bought from a bank covered by deposit insurance?
No; a fund participation share is not a bank deposit. Any liability that may arise from the bank's distribution and other activities is assessed separately.
Is the portfolio custodian liable for every fund loss?
No. A specific breach of custody/control, the loss and the relevant conditions of legal liability must be investigated.
Does a MASAK report prove that an offence was committed?
No. The reporting obligation and the proof of an offence in criminal proceedings are separate matters.
Is information disclosed on KAP accepted as definitely true?
No. The time and content of a disclosure are evidence; they are not of themselves a guarantee of unlimited accuracy.
Does the YTM cover every investment loss?
No. The general YTM regime does not cover all losses arising from market price movements.
Does Law No. 7596 cover all investment funds?
No; it is a special regulation for the funds within the scope of the specific liquidation decisions of 17 September 2026 defined in the Law.
Is a payment of one million lira guaranteed to everyone?
No. The ceiling and calculation conditions of the special liquidation regime apply; payment is neither automatic nor of an equal amount.
What is the professional client threshold now?
In the SPK decision of 26 October 2026, the financial asset criterion for an on-request professional client was updated to TL 50 million and the transaction volume criterion to TL 25 million; the other conditions are reserved.
When may the TSPB Arbitration Committee be applied to?
The member institution is applied to first. If it responds, the 60-day period for applying to the Committee runs from the date of the response; if it does not, it runs after the 30-day response period. The five-year limit from the date of the transaction is also observed.
Does an SPK complaint replace an action for damages?
Not in every case. An administrative review and a claim for personal loss are separate legal processes.
Can compensation be claimed from a public authority that did not perform its supervisory duty?
A legal assessment can be made if a specific statutory obligation and the relevant conditions of liability exist; the mere existence of supervisory power is not sufficient.
What is the most important evidence in a financial irregularity?
Transaction and order records, bank movements, MKK and custody records, fund documents, valuation and management decisions, institutional correspondence and KAP disclosures matter case by case.
Sources and legal bases
- Capital Markets Law No. 6362 and the current SPK legislation system — in particular Articles 52–56, 81–84, 104, 106–107, 110, 115, 128.
- Banking Law No. 5411 – Legislation Information System — in particular Article 93.
- Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds of Crime — in particular Article 4.
- Law No. 6493 on Payment and Securities Settlement Systems, Payment Services and Electronic Money Institutions.
- Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102; Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098; Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577; Law No. 7518.
- Law No. 7596 on Certain Investment Funds Whose Liquidation Has Been Decided, Official Gazette 27.10.2026, 33413.
- Communiqué on Principles Regarding Investment Funds III-52.1; Communiqué on Principles Regarding Portfolio Custody Services III-56.1; related investment services communiqués.
- SPK, announcement of 26.10.2026 on professional clients and qualified investors.
- SPK, announcement of 26.10.2026 on the Fund Guide and the 31.01.2027 compliance date.
- SPK, statement on the regulatory process for the Guide on Investment Funds.
- SPK, announcement of 27.10.2026 on liquidation and payments.
- TSPB, Customer Disputes Arbitration Committee – scope and time limits.
- YTM, official statements on investor compensation.
- MASAK, obligations and suspicious transaction reports.