In a Forex investigation, working for a company does not, on its own, mean being liable for every offense allegedly committed through that company. Criminal liability is determined by the work the employee actually did, the knowledge and authority the employee had, which transaction was carried out on which date, and how the employee knowingly took part in carrying out the offense. Conversely, working for a salary or following a manager’s instructions does not automatically make a contribution to knowingly conducted fraudulent sales and unauthorized investment activities lawful. Protecting the victim and ensuring a fair trial require call center, sales, software and management roles to be distinguished from one another on the basis of concrete evidence, and genuine market losses, fraud and breach of trust to be assessed differently.
How are a Forex loss, unauthorized activity and fraud distinguished?
Losing money in a Forex transaction is the starting point of a legal review; on its own, it is not the name of an offense. Transactions carried out at an authorized institution with the investor’s knowledge and on the investor’s instructions may cause losses because of market movements. In a different file, however, it may be alleged that the gains shown to the investor did not reflect reality, that the money was not used for investment, or that withdrawal requests were blocked in order to obtain new payments. The use of the same word, “Forex,” does not place these situations in the same legal category. The review must not be confined to the contract and screenshots; it must reach how the transaction was actually conducted. [1] [2] [3]
Must the investor necessarily suffer a loss for unauthorized capital markets activity?
Article 109/2 of Capital Markets Law No. 6362 governs unauthorized capital markets activity. For the sanction to apply, the nature of the activity requiring authorization and the fact that it was conducted without authorization are investigated; the elements of deception and loss specific to the offense of fraud are not substituted for this offense. The current text of the article provides for imprisonment from two to five years and a judicial fine of five thousand to ten thousand days. This range does not mean the penalty every employee will receive; the person’s act and form of participation are assessed separately. [1]
The official announcement of the Capital Markets Board (SPK) dated February 23, 2023 also addresses facilitating the commission of unauthorized leveraged trading activities aimed at investors resident in Türkiye by providing advertising, bank accounts or telephone lines. The announcement explains that a criminal report may be filed against these persons. The possibility of filing a criminal report and proving a specific person’s offense in court are separate stages; the announcement does not remove the inquiry into intent and personal liability. [4]
When does fraud come into play?
In the assessment of fraud, deceptive conduct, deception, loss of property and the relationship to a benefit for the perpetrator or another person are examined. The use of information systems, acting on behalf of a company in the course of commercial activity, or creating a false connection with certain institutions may, depending on the circumstances of the case, be relevant to the aggravated forms in Article 158 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). The factual basis in the case for each aggravated form alleged must be shown separately. [2]
For example, an employee who knows that no investment was actually made but tells the client that gains have been earned and asks for a new payment engages in conduct that must be examined directly in terms of personal liability. By contrast, it is not correct to treat every sales call after which the investor later suffered a loss as deception from the outset. What was said on the date of the call, whether it was true, the employee’s knowledge and its effect on the payment decision must be investigated together.
Why is breach of trust examined separately?
Using money contrary to the purpose for which it was handed over may, depending on the circumstances of the case, give rise to an assessment of breach of trust. The distinction between receiving money through deception from the outset and later using money that was lawfully handed over for a purpose other than the agreed one is important. Which offense has been committed by a person who received money in the capacity of an investment adviser cannot be inferred solely from the sentence “my money was not paid back.” [2] [5]
What do current investigations in Türkiye show for employees?
In a statement by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (İstanbul Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) reported by Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı) on September 18, 2026, it was alleged that, in companies with the appearance of call centers, persons reached through investment advertisements were directed to different employees. The statement refers to methods such as false stories of expertise, internal client tracking records, altering the values on investment screens and demanding additional money for withdrawals. These are findings alleged within the scope of the investigation on the date of the statement; they cannot be presented as final convictions of all employees. [6]
For the victim, the grave consequence of such files is being unable to access one’s savings and the pressure to make further payments in order to recover the money. A person may take on new debt so as not to lose the initial investment. This last sentence is not a finding that every person in that news report took on debt; it is an assessment of the harm that the described method may cause. In a legal application, separating the first payment from later payment demands in particular makes it possible to determine who said what at each stage.
That is also the core question for the employee: Did the person only create an application record, did the person personally give the false information that influenced the investment decision, or did the person knowingly try to obtain new payments by means of the withdrawal block? In a file with many suspects, an assessment made without distinguishing the roles both makes it harder to identify those truly responsible and may lead to persons whose connection with the offense cannot be shown being kept under the same accusation.
By what criteria is an employee’s criminal liability determined?
What do an employment contract and a payroll record prove?
An employment contract, registration with the Social Security Institution (SGK) and a payroll record may show the person’s employment-based relationship with the company during a certain period. These documents do not, on their own, show what the employee told which investor or that the employee knew of a fake transaction screen. The principle of the personal nature of criminal liability in TCK Article 20 prevents liability from being established on the basis of another person’s act. An allegation that the company was founded for the purpose of committing offenses also requires a separate examination of whether each staff member knew of that purpose. [2]
On the other hand, working on the payroll does not prove that the work performed did not constitute an offense either. One person may knowingly conduct deceptive calls while receiving a fixed wage; another may have provided a technical service without knowing of the criminal activity despite receiving a high wage. The existence and amount of the wage and the way it was paid gain meaning together with the other evidence. The review cannot be built on the reasoning “they received a salary, therefore they are guilty” or “they were salaried, therefore they are not responsible.”
Can intent, neglect and mistake be confused with one another?
With regard to intent, whether the person carried out the elements of the offense knowingly and willingly is assessed. Doing one’s job carelessly, failing to investigate a suspicious situation sufficiently or breaching a professional obligation is not the same as knowingly taking part in a fraudulent system. Liability for negligence arises only in cases expressly provided for by law. TCK Articles 21, 22 and 30 form the basis of this distinction. [2]
With regard to conditional intent (olası kast), too, an assessment that the person “should have noticed” is not enough. Facts are investigated showing that the employee actually foresaw that the elements of the offense might be realized, accepted that possibility and nevertheless continued the act. Whether complaints reached the employee, how the employee understood them and what the employee did afterward are therefore important. The existence of a development that appears suspicious does not remove the need to examine knowledge and will in relation to the specific person. [2]
The defense “I thought the license was genuine” is not, on its own, a reason for acceptance or rejection either. Which document was shown to the employee, how the official authorization information was presented, whether the role required expertise and the concrete developments that would have enabled the employee to notice the falsehood are examined. A mistake concerning the material elements and ignorance of the law are not the same legal issue. In assessing the effect on criminal liability of a mistake as to the unlawfulness of the act committed, the statutory requirement of unavoidability is also taken into account. [2]
Does carrying out the employer’s instructions remove liability?
An employer setting sales targets or preparing a call script does not create a general ground for non-liability for an employee who knowingly uses that script for the purpose of deception. An instruction that constitutes an offense does not become lawful through an employment contract. However, the situation of an employee who states that he or she performed ordinary work without knowing the criminal nature of the instruction must also be examined on the basis of the employee’s actual level of knowledge. Taking TCK Articles 24 and 30 into account together, the link between the specific act and personal fault must be explained. [2]
For what conduct can call center and sales employees be held liable?
Are the first call and getting the investor to send money the same role?
The first-contact employee may only record a request for a call; another employee may give investment advice; a third person may deal with deposit or withdrawal problems. The expression “client representative” used in the file may cover these different jobs. For this reason, the actual division of roles, call records and the permissions in the client tracking screen matter as much as the official job title.
Showing the victim a fake certificate of expertise, describing a nonexistent SPK authorization as if it were genuine, or presenting a transaction that was not actually carried out as if it had been may make the allegation of personal deception concrete. But who engaged in this conduct must be determined separately. If several people use the same company telephone in different shifts, it must be established by whom the relevant call was made. Voice, session, shift and routing records should be assessed together.
How are sales bonuses, persuading the client and follow-up calls assessed?
A bonus system may show which transactions the employee benefited from; on its own, it does not give a definitive result on sharing in the proceeds of the offense or knowing of the deception. It must be determined to which criterion the bonus was tied, such as client applications, actual trading volume, net money deposited or talking clients out of withdrawals. In particular, instructions given after a withdrawal request to obtain a new payment, and the employee’s response to those instructions, may be examined in a time frame different from that of the first sale.
In a representative scenario, suppose that when the investor wants to withdraw the amount in the account, the client representative tells the investor that a new payment is required on the grounds of a “tax demanded by the system.” The criminal assessment investigates, together with the falsehood of this statement, whether the employee knew the truth. An employee who continues to give the same explanation even though he or she learned in internal correspondence that this amount was not a tax, and an employee who passes on false information given to him or her for the first time, are not in the same evidentiary position. This example is not the outcome of any real file.
Can an employee who never spoke with the client also participate in the offense?
Speaking directly with the victim is not a necessary condition for participation in the offense. A person who knowingly organizes deceptive calls, prepares fake documents or provides, for that purpose, the tools used to commit the offense is also assessed according to his or her contribution. TCK Articles 37–40 set out the legal distinction between joint perpetration, incitement and aiding. Being present at the same workplace, by contrast, does not take the place of these forms of participation. [2]
How are joint perpetration, incitement and aiding distinguished?
The liability as joint perpetrators of those who together carry out the act in the statutory definition of the offense differs from incitement by a person who creates in another the decision to commit an offense. Providing tools, giving guidance or facilitating the commission before or during the commission of the offense may, if the conditions are met, be assessed as aiding. This distinction is made not according to the employee’s seniority or wage, but according to his or her actual role in the offense committed. [2]
For example, for a person who prepared the call script, the explanation that he or she “was only working in the background” is not sufficient. The function of the script in the criminal plan, the person’s relationship with the other participants and his or her contribution to carrying out the deceptive conduct are investigated. Similarly, it cannot be said that the person who makes the first call to the client is necessarily a joint perpetrator, or that the person providing a technical service is necessarily an aider. For aiding, the conditions of a conscious contribution to an intentionally committed unlawful act and of the relevant offense having reached at least the stage of attempt must be shown. [2]
TCK Article 158/4, added by Article 13 of Law No. 7589, which entered into force on July 31, 2026, provides for a separate reduction for a narrow form of participation. Where the contribution to fraud is limited to giving another person, for the purpose of obtaining an unjust benefit, the necessary information or tools enabling the use of a payment instrument or the relevant account, the penalty is reduced by half. This provision is not a general reduction or exemption from punishment granted to salaried employees. The scope of the act of making an account available, the other contributions and the transitional provisions must be examined separately. [10]
How is the situation of software and technical support employees examined?
Is developing an investment application an offense in itself?
Developing general-purpose software, maintaining servers or solving users’ connection problems is not, on its own, taking part in Forex fraud. It must be investigated which function the technical employee developed, whether he or she knew of the actual use of that function and when the requested change was made. A program being used in a fraud and the program’s developer intentionally taking part in that fraud are different allegations.
For example, a function prepared to show the client unreal gains and a sample balance screen used in a test environment may look similar. What matters is whether the function was applied to a live investor account, whether the user took it to be the result of a real transaction and whether the developer knew of that purpose. A person’s intent should not be inferred solely from a button seen on the screen without reading together records such as the source code, the change request and access permissions.
How are having access rights to the system and actually carrying out a transaction distinguished?
An employee having administrator rights does not mean that he or she carried out every transaction within the scope of those rights. The possibilities of shared account use, delegation of tasks, automated transactions or intervention by another user must be investigated. Conversely, if a transaction carried out through a session specific to the person, the correspondence requesting the relevant change and the explanation subsequently sent to the victim corroborate one another, the connection may become stronger. This is not a technical formula producing the same result in every file, but a method for assessing concrete evidence together.
Obtaining from a court-appointed expert only the opinion that “the program can be used in fraud” is not a sufficient investigative objective. The question to be examined is how the program worked in the account of the relevant investor on the relevant date and what contribution the specific employee made to that result. The comparison of records required by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) in its Forex decision dated February 12, 2026 is part of the examination concerning the company’s shareholders and officers. Drawing on this method here for employee files is our legal assessment, the limits of which are explained below. [3]
Do the same criteria apply to team leaders, managers and support staff?
A team leader’s authority may extend to different areas, such as setting call scripts, training employees, seeing complaints and managing sales targets. For such a person, instead of looking only at the job title, it must be investigated which instructions he or she gave and what effect those instructions had on the commission of the offense. The situation of a person who knowingly teaches employees to use false identities or to give investors false information is not the same as that of an officer who arranges meeting times.
For an employee in the compliance or complaints unit, by contrast, the content of the information that reached him or her and the authority to act are decisive. Recording a withdrawal request and knowingly blocking the withdrawal, or forwarding a complaint to the competent unit and preparing a fraudulent justification and passing it on to the investor, are different forms of conduct. Without explaining which elements of which specific offense a breach of duty fulfills, every shortcoming cannot be characterized as aiding fraud.
In roles such as recruitment, office services and administrative support, a concrete contribution to a known criminal plan is also required. A person speaking a foreign language, working with foreign clients or being related to a company manager is not, on its own, a criterion of guilt. This information contributes to the assessment only to the extent that a connection with concrete conduct can be established. Criminal liability is established not on the basis of the name of the relationship, but on the basis of the person’s own act. [2]
| Role or record | Concrete contribution to be investigated | Conclusion that cannot be drawn on its own |
|---|---|---|
| Call center employee | With whom, when and with what information the employee spoke | That the employee made all the calls in the company |
| Sales officer | Knowingly using false information and influencing the payment decision | That the officer is liable for every investment loss |
| Software developer | Knowingly preparing or applying a specific function for the criminal purpose | That the developer knew of every use of the program |
| Team leader | Instructions aimed at the fraudulent activity and their effect in practice | Automatic liability for all acts of subordinates |
| Complaints or compliance officer | Actual authority over the problem the officer knew of, and the action taken | That every delay was intentional concealment |
| Administrative support staff | A specific facility knowingly provided for the criminal plan | That being at the same workplace is participation |
The table is an assessment framework based on the TCK provisions on personal liability and participation; it is not a finding of guilt or an acquittal concerning specific persons. [2]
With what evidence are intent and personal contribution investigated?
Why should the period of employment be matched with the dates of events?
The hiring date, changes of role, leave periods and departure should be compared with the investor’s first contact, the payment dates and subsequent demands. It is not correct to attribute to an employee who joined the company later all the acts completed in the past. Nevertheless, obtaining new payments or later joining ongoing deceptive conduct may be examined separately. Having left the job does not automatically remove a contribution knowingly made earlier either.
A distinction in time is also necessary with regard to intent. For an employee who says that in the first days he or she believed the transactions were genuine, what the employee later learned and what the employee did after learning it are important. Knowledge acquired later does not show that the employee had the same knowledge in the past; it may, however, be decisive in assessing the employee’s subsequent conduct.
How are the victim’s statement, messages and company records read together?
The victim’s statement is important evidence. It is not appropriate either to reject the value of the statement from the outset or to extend its accuracy to all employees without any examination. Recognition of the person spoken with, the name used, the telephone number, the content of the conversation and consistency with the records are examined separately. If it is alleged that an alias was used by different employees, this point must be investigated concretely.
Taking a part of a message without seeing the preceding question or a later correction may produce a false meaning. Calls and correspondence should, as far as possible, be dealt with in their context. Distinguishing the original record from a summary prepared later, and verifying the date, user and transaction information, is important. Article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) requires incriminating and exculpatory evidence to be collected together, and Article 217 requires lawfully obtained evidence to be discussed at trial. [7]
| Legal question | Relevant records | Limit in the assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Who made the call? | Call record, shift, user session | The telephone subscriber and the actual user may differ |
| What information was given? | The whole call, messages, documents sent | Selected sentences may strip away context |
| Did the employee know the truth? | Training, warnings, complaints, the employee’s responses | When the information reached the employee must be established |
| What transaction did the employee carry out in the system? | Permission record, transaction history, change request | Having an authorization is not the same as using it |
| What was the employee’s contribution to the payment? | Dates of calls and transfers, client record | Not every payment may result from the conduct of the same person |
| What does not support the accusation? | Leave, limits of the role, objection and routing records | Favorable evidence must also be added to the file |
What conclusions can be drawn from recent Court of Cassation decisions?
The 2026 decision: real transactions and user permissions must be investigated
In the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated February 12, 2026, E.2021/41895, K.2026/1604, the allegation that investors were made to carry out Forex transactions and that the money collected was not used in the market was examined. The Chamber reversed the acquittal judgments on the grounds that the computer records of the company and the investors had to be compared, the investors’ actual trading and withdrawal permissions had to be determined, and the contradictions in the expert reports had to be resolved. This decision cannot be presented as a definitive conviction outcome. [3]
The defendants in the decision are the company’s shareholders and officers. The Chamber did not set a direct criterion for the conviction or acquittal of a salaried employee. The inference drawn in this article for employee files is the use of the method of investigating personal contribution by comparing technical and financial records; the scope of the inference should not be confused with the matter on which the decision directly ruled.
The 2025 decision: the act of an adviser acting independently of the company is also examined
In the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 13, 2025, E.2022/5749, K.2025/5932, the case of a person working as an investment adviser who, acting independently of the company, received money and transferred it to Forex accounts was assessed. The Chamber reversed the judgment because an assessment should have been made under Article 155/2, which governs breach of trust by reason of a service relationship, instead of TCK Article 155/1. The decision does not treat every investment loss as fraud; it shows the importance of examining separately the employee’s personal transaction and the reason for which the money was handed over. [5]
Can a decision upholding a conviction be applied to every employee?
In the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated June 25, 2025, E.2025/2539, K.2025/7914, a conviction based on allegations of a Forex promise, money being sent to a company account and a benefit being obtained without any investment being made was upheld. The Chamber assessed the defendant’s communications and the evidence in the file together. It cannot be concluded from this that a company account or the expression “investment adviser” alone is sufficient in all files. The decision concerns specific acts of a specific defendant; in a new file, whether the same connections exist must be investigated. [8]
How was favorable evidence assessed for call center employees?
In section 14/C of the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated December 2, 2025, E.2025/2752, K.2025/15531, the convictions for aggravated fraud of certain employees who made telephone calls, which were under review, were reversed. The short period of employment, minimum wage and social security records were assessed together with the limited calling role, low-value account movements and the absence of digital data showing that the offense was known. The Chamber found it unlawful that a conviction had been rendered instead of an acquittal even though there was no concrete evidence sufficient for a conviction concerning conscious participation. [11]
This outcome cannot be explained by low wages alone; the facts in the file were assessed together. Moreover, the anonymized full text does not state that the activity was Forex. The decision is used here for a comparative assessment of the personal intent of call center employees. There are different outcomes in other parts of the judgment in the same file; some applications for legal remedies could not be examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that all defendants were acquitted of all charges, or that every employee submitting the same documents will obtain the same result. [11]
Which rights and documents should an employee under investigation focus on?
The accusation should be explained to the suspect, and the suspect should be informed of the right to the assistance of defense counsel and the right not to make a statement about the accusation. The statement record should accurately reflect what the person actually said. For an employee who does not have knowledge of all of the company’s transactions, it is important to set out accurately the limits of his or her own role and knowledge, rather than explaining events he or she did not see as if he or she knew of them. CMK Articles 147 and 148 govern the safeguards for taking statements. [7]
Preparation of the defense should be conducted on the basis of the employment contract, letters of assignment, work records belonging to the person, the instructions given to him or her and the available favorable documents. It may be requested that records held by the company but inaccessible to the employee be obtained through official channels. The need to preserve documents does not authorize unauthorized access to another person’s account or the unlawful taking of all the company’s data. Preserving the records without alteration and submitting them to the judicial authorities when necessary supports an accurate investigation of the events.
There may be a conflict of interest between a company manager and an employee. If the manager denies having given instructions while the employee states that he or she carried out the transaction on those instructions, the appropriateness of a joint defense should be assessed separately. CMK Article 152 governs defense by the same counsel subject to the condition that the interests are compatible. The fact that the company has an attorney does not mean that every employee’s need for a personal defense has been met. [7]
How should the roles of employees be made concrete in a victim’s application?
The victim cannot be expected to know the real names of all employees or the internal structure of the company. In the application, the known information and the unknown points may be shown separately. The expression “the person who introduced himself or herself under a certain name” may be more accurate than treating an identity that has not yet been verified as established. The first call, the investment promise, each payment and the withdrawal block should be set out in chronological order, and it should be explained which statement led to which decision.
Bank receipts (dekont), call details, contracts and investment screens should be matched with the relevant event. Writing only the total amount of loss may obscure the allegation that the second or third payment was obtained through a new deception by a different employee. Concrete requests for the investigation of the company’s records, specific calls and user activity on the relevant dates strengthen the application. This approach is necessary not in order to narrow the criminal accusation, but in order to determine the true liability.
A notification made to the SPK and a criminal report to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office serve different functions. For offenses defined in or referred to by the Capital Markets Law, Article 115 makes the written application of the Board a prerequisite to the criminal proceedings. A judicial application concerning a general fraud allegation does not have to be postponed merely because an SPK review is pending; the legal nature of the allegations and the special application requirement should be assessed separately. The SPK’s complaint guide also helps determine the authority appropriate to the nature of the application. [1] [9]
A determination of an employee’s criminal liability does not mean that the victim’s loss is automatically paid. Investigation of assets, protective measures and private law claims are pursued separately. Assessments concerning persons providing accounting services, those who make bank accounts available and the allegation of an organization may also be added to the employee review in this article; the different elements and evidentiary problems of these areas should be dealt with separately. In particular, not every transfer of money can be accepted as laundering under TCK Article 282, and not every business hierarchy as a criminal organization. [2]
Related articles: Use of a Bank Account in Fraud: Intent, Participation and the Criminal Liability of the Account Holder; The Problem of Characterizing Deceptive Conduct in the Offense of Fraud: The Intensity of Deceit and the Victim’s Ability to Verify; Statements and Interrogation in Criminal Investigations: The Right to Silence, Legal Assistance and Defense Strategy; Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Phone Examination, Lawfulness and Objection; Criminal Liability of Accountants and Financial Advisers in Forex Investigations: Professional Duty, Intent and Participation; Criminal Liability of Those Who Let Their Bank Accounts Be Used in Forex Investigations, and MASAK Reports; Criminal Organization Allegations and Digital Evidence in Forex Investigations: Corporate Hierarchy, Participation and Defense Rights.
Conclusion
A sound assessment in Forex investigations requires refraining from collectively declaring employees guilty or not responsible according to their job titles. The person’s actual work, knowledge, authority, period of employment and concrete contribution toward the relevant investor must be examined together. For an employee who knowingly takes part in committing the offense, salaried status provides no protection; for a person whose connection with the offense cannot be shown, working at the same company does not take the place of a conviction.
Protecting the victim’s rights and ensuring a fair trial for the employee both rest on uncovering the same material truth. Matching payments and calls by person and date, comparing technical records, and collecting incriminating and exculpatory evidence together serve this purpose. Case law, too, should be read in light of its own facts and outcomes; a reversal decision should not be presented as a conviction, nor a specific person’s conviction as a general ruling to be applied to all company employees.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is working at a Forex company an offense in itself?
No. The company’s activity and the employee’s personal conduct within that activity are examined. Criminal liability cannot be established solely on the basis of the employment relationship without assessing together the employment contract, the actual role, the level of knowledge and the contribution to the commission of the offense. [2]
Is a call center employee relieved of liability by saying that he or she only read the script provided?
This explanation does not, on its own, determine the outcome. The content of the script, whether the employee knew of the falsehood, the effect of the call on the payment decision and the employee’s other conduct are investigated. Carrying out conscious deception in reliance on a manager’s instructions is not a general ground for non-liability. [2]
Is receiving a salary or bonus sufficient to prove the offense?
On its own, it does not constitute a sufficient assessment. What work or result the payment was made for, and its relationship with the other evidence, are investigated. Receiving a wage may coexist both with an ordinary employment relationship and with a conscious contribution to an offense; the distinction is made on the basis of the specific case. [2]
Can a software developer still be liable if he or she did not speak with investors?
Yes, it is possible. Knowingly preparing the necessary tools for the criminal purpose or facilitating the commission of the offense may be assessed as participation. Providing a general-purpose software service, by contrast, does not on its own produce the same result. The actual use of the function and the person’s knowledge must be determined. [2] [3]
Can an employee who has left the job be held liable for earlier transactions?
Leaving the job does not remove the legal assessment of earlier personal acts. Conversely, not all transactions after the departure can be automatically attributed to the person either. The scope of the earlier contribution and its connection with each new event are investigated. [2]
Does not knowing that the company lacked SPK authorization necessarily lead to acquittal?
No. What the lack of knowledge relates to, whether there was a mistake as to the material elements and the other conditions are assessed. The authorization information shown to the employee, the employee’s role and the information the employee acquired later are important. The statutory provisions on mistake must be applied to the specific case. [1] [2]
Can a victim file a criminal complaint if he or she knows only an alias and a telephone number?
Yes. The victim may set out the information he or she knows, how it was obtained and the dates of the events. The victim may request that the identity be investigated. Rather than presenting an unverified name as a definite identity, it is more appropriate to state the name used and the contact information as they are. [7]
Can the company manager and the employee have the same attorney?
The compatibility of interests must be assessed. Under CMK Article 152, the defense of more than one suspect by the same defense counsel is governed subject to this condition. If the manager and the employee attribute liability to each other, the need for an independent defense becomes particularly important. [7]
After a notification has been made to the SPK, can a separate application be made to the public prosecutor’s office?
The applications serve different functions. A general fraud allegation may be reported to the judicial authorities. For offenses within the scope of the Capital Markets Law, the special prerequisite to the criminal proceedings concerning the written application of the Board is also taken into account. It should not be assumed that one notification exhausts all other legal routes. [1] [9]
Do the Court of Cassation’s Forex decisions produce the same result for all employees?
No. The facts of the decision, the conduct of the person examined, the type of offense applied and whether the outcome was a reversal or an affirmation are important. The use of the same job title does not make files equivalent. Case law is not a guarantee of conviction or acquittal that takes the place of concrete evidence. [3] [5] [8] [11]
Sources and legal bases
The sources were checked on October 18, 2026. All of the Court of Cassation decisions below were examined through the publicly accessible official decision texts of the Ministry of Justice’s UYAP Legislation and Case-Law Program (UYAP Mevzuat ve İçtihat Programı). The news source reports an investigation statement; it is not a document of a final conviction.
- Law No. 6362, Capital Markets Law (Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu), adopted: December 6, 2012; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete): December 30, 2012, No. 28513. In particular Articles 39–40, 109/2 and 115. Current UYAP record: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr — Official text of the Central Registry Agency (MKK) used for comparison: www.mkk.com.tr
- Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), adopted: September 26, 2004; Official Gazette: October 12, 2004, No. 25611. In particular Articles 4, 20–24, 30, 37–40, 155, 157–158, 220 and 282. Text of the Ministry of Justice Department of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adalet Bakanlığı Alternatif Çözümler Daire Başkanlığı) incorporating the amendments of December 25, 2025: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr — for Article 158/4, added in 2026, this text has been supplemented by [10].
- Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), February 12, 2026, E.2021/41895, K.2026/1604. Reversal of acquittal judgments because of the comparison of company and investor records, actual trading permissions and contradictions in the expert reports. Official full text: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Capital Markets Board, “Press Announcement on Unauthorized Leveraged Transactions” (“İzinsiz Kaldıraçlı İşlemlere İlişkin Basın Duyurusu”), February 23, 2023. spk.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, May 13, 2025, E.2022/5749, K.2025/5932. An investment adviser acting independently of the company and receiving money; reversal on the grounds that an assessment under TCK Article 155/2 instead of 155/1 was required. Official full text: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Anadolu Agency, “191 suspects apprehended in Israel-linked forex fraud investigation” (“İsrail bağlantılı forex dolandırıcılığı soruşturmasında 191 şüpheli yakalandı”), September 18, 2026. A news report relaying the statement of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office; in this article, the information on methods and the division of roles was used with the investigation stage indicated. www.aa.com.tr
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), adopted: December 4, 2004; Official Gazette: December 17, 2004, No. 25673. In particular Articles 147–148, 152–153, 158, 160 and 217. Text of the Ministry of Justice Department of Alternative Dispute Resolution incorporating the amendments of December 25, 2025: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, June 25, 2025, E.2025/2539, K.2025/7914. Upholding of a conviction for aggravated fraud for specific acts carried out with a Forex promise. Official full text: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Capital Markets Board, “Where and How to File a Complaint?” (“Şikayet Başvurusu Nereye, Nasıl Yapılır?”), official investor guide. spk.gov.tr
- Law No. 7589 Amending Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun), adopted: July 16, 2026; Official Gazette: July 31, 2026, No. 33326. Article 13 adding TCK Article 158/4, transitional Article 1/6–7 and entry-into-force Article 26. Full text from the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM): cdn.tbmm.gov.tr — Law and publication record: www.tbmm.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, December 2, 2025, E.2025/2752, K.2025/15531. In particular section 14/C: reversal of the convictions under review because there was no sufficient concrete evidence showing the conscious participation of the employees making calls. Because the full text does not state that the case was a Forex case, it was used in the comparative assessment of employees’ intent. Official full text: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr