Criminal Liability of Those Who Let Their Bank Accounts Be Used in Forex Investigations, and MASAK Reports

In a Forex investigation, the fact that money passed through a person’s account does not, on its own, prove that the person knowingly took part in fraud; giving one’s account to someone else does not automatically eliminate liability either. Who actually used the account, what the account holder knew at the time of the transactions, the benefit that was intended to be obtained and the person’s contribution to the commission of the offense must be investigated. Article 158/4 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), which entered into force on July 31, 2026, introduced a penalty reduction, subject to certain conditions, for limited acts of letting an account or a payment instrument be used. The transactions on which a report of the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) is based must be examined person by person; the 48-hour account suspension, the seven-business-day postponement of transactions and judicial seizure must be distinguished from one another. These distinctions are decisive for identifying those who are actually responsible, for protecting the victim’s money and for lifting unjustified restrictions.

Why do third parties’ accounts become important in Forex investigations?

An investor may believe that the IBAN to which they sent money belongs to a genuine investment firm. In the investigation, however, it may emerge that the money went into another person’s account, was transferred to different accounts within a short time or was converted into crypto-assets. In that case, the identity of the account’s owner establishes the first link; but it does not explain who spoke with the investor, who decided where the money would go and whether the account holder knew these things.

The statement of the Istanbul Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (İstanbul Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı), reported in a news report by Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı) dated January 6, 2026, describes an investigation into money allegedly derived from Forex and certain other alleged offenses being introduced into the financial system through company and individual accounts, converted into crypto-assets and transferred abroad. This account reflects the allegations and findings in the investigation concerned; it is not a final finding of guilt regarding every account holder named. The current problem is that the platform the investor sees is not the same as the persons who actually reach the money. [13]

The announcement of the Capital Markets Board (SPK) on unauthorized leveraged transactions also states that criminal reports may be filed against those who facilitate the conduct of unauthorized activity by letting their bank accounts be used. Here, unauthorized capital markets activity, fraud and laundering are separate criminal inquiries. An ordinary market loss, an unauthorized investment service and obtaining money by deception under the guise of investment are not the same legal event. The account review should serve to determine the true nature of the transaction. [14]

When does letting a bank account be used give rise to criminal liability?

Account ownership, actual use of the account and intent

Under TCK Articles 20 and 21, criminal liability is personal and, as a rule, requires intent. The assessment of participation in fraud should examine the knowledge and will regarding the use of the account in the commission of the offense. The perpetrator need not know the name of every victim or the statutory article to be applied; however, it cannot be presumed that the account holder knew of others’ deception merely because the account is registered in their name. Negligence gives rise to liability in cases expressly made punishable by law; carelessness and intentional participation in fraud cannot be converted into one another. [1]

Sharing an IBAN for the payment of a sale price is different from leaving cards and passwords to another person’s continuous use. Whether the account was opened by misusing identity information, or whether an existing account was accessed without authorization, must also be investigated separately. The account opening document may shed light on legal ownership; session, verification, device, cash withdrawal and instruction records may shed light on the person who carried out a particular transaction. Unless it is checked whether these records are consistent with one another, all roles cannot be determined from the bank statement alone.

How are commissions, instructions and the date of the transaction assessed?

Receiving a commission is an important fact; however, it cannot be presumed in the same way in every file that the unlawfulness of the work done was known. The amount of the benefit, the work described, the genuineness of the contract, the account holder’s relationship with other persons and their conduct after warnings must be examined together. On the other hand, not receiving any gain does not make knowing assistance lawful either: the person may have facilitated the commission of the offense in order to benefit someone else. [1] [2]

The date on which the knowledge was acquired is particularly important. A complaint learned of later does not show that the same knowledge existed during all earlier transactions. By contrast, accepting payments from other victims after a clear fraud warning may call for a different assessment with respect to the later transactions. The date of each transfer, the person who gave the instruction and the account holder’s knowledge on that date must be matched. This method ensures that the investigation is conducted transaction by transaction instead of relying on a general narrative constructed after the fact.

The table translates the TCK’s provisions on personal liability and participation into concrete investigative questions; no row is, on its own, a criterion for acquittal or conviction. [1]

Why must joint perpetration be distinguished from aiding and abetting?

Under TCK Articles 37–40, committing an offense jointly and knowingly facilitating its commission are different forms of participation. The role of the person who directs the fraud scheme, steers the victims and determines the flow of money cannot be treated as identical to the role of a person who merely supplies a limited instrument. A professional title, family ties or the total volume of movements in the account do not take the place of this distinction. [1]

Nurullah Kantarcı’s study on letting an account be used criticizes treating an account holder as a joint perpetrator without sufficiently investigating the holder’s intent and control over the act. The author argues that the specific contribution may remain at the level of aiding and abetting. This is not a definitive conclusion to be applied in every case, but a doctrinal view calling for reasons to be given for the participation status. The study dates from 2025; the application of TCK Article 158/4, added in 2026, must be examined separately. [9]

Which evidence does the Court of Cassation consider important in account-lending files?

In the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) dated May 13, 2025, E.2021/26598, K.2025/5964, the account holder, who worked as a hairdresser, argued that they had handed over their card after a customer said that money would arrive. The account given by the other defendant also confirms this relationship. Stating that there was no concrete evidence, free from doubt, sufficient for a conviction of this account holder, the Chamber reversed the judgment on the ground that a conviction had been rendered instead of an acquittal. The fact that the judgment concerning the other defendant was upheld shows that different outcomes may attach to different persons in the same file. [7]

In another decision dated July 11, 2024, E.2024/3645, K.2024/9532, several facts were assessed, such as providing accounts in return for a commission, going to the bank together to withdraw money, confession and identification. The convictions were upheld with corrections concerning litigation costs and, for the relevant defendant, recidivism. Here the outcome does not rest solely on the account being in the defendant’s name; the actual transactions and the links between the persons also form part of the reasoning. [8]

These two decisions do not concern a Forex dispute and were rendered before TCK Article 158/4. Telephone fraud cases can be drawn on only for individualizing the account holder’s knowledge, role and the concrete evidence. The decisions do not determine today’s penalty or that all account holders hold the same participation status. For the reader, the conclusion is that, in a defense or a complaint, one should not merely point to the IBAN but explain the actual use of that IBAN in the offense.

TCK Article 158/4: to whom does the reduction introduced in 2026 for letting an account be used apply?

Limited contribution and the purpose of an unjust benefit are assessed together

TCK Article 158/4, added by Article 13 of Law No. 7589, entered into force on July 31, 2026. The provision provides for a reduction of the penalty by half where participation in an offense under TCK Article 157 or 158 remains limited to giving another person certain payment instruments, or the information or instruments necessary for using an account. That the act is committed for the purpose of obtaining an unjust benefit for oneself or another is also among the conditions of the provision. [2]

The provision is not limited to the person’s own bank account. The text covers payment instruments belonging to the person or to another, as well as the information and instruments enabling the use of accounts held with a bank, brokerage firm, payment service provider or crypto-asset service provider. Nevertheless, the fact that a type of account falls within its scope does not mean that the reduction applies to every account transaction. It must be determined whether the person’s contribution remained limited to the act described in the law. [2]

First, the conditions of an intentional offense and of participation are investigated. If these cannot be proven, the issue is not an automatic half penalty. Where participation is established, it is assessed whether additional acts of the person, such as conducting deceptive conversations with the victim, directing the scheme or personally running the flow of money, go beyond the limits of the special reduction. The sentence “I let my account be used” does not, by itself, prove that there was no other contribution in the case.

Actually obtaining the benefit and the purpose of obtaining a benefit are also distinct. The fact that the person was unable to receive a commission does not, on its own, exclude the provision where it is proven that they acted for the purpose of obtaining an unjust benefit for another. Conversely, the purpose element cannot be automatically inferred from the account balance either. The relationship between the reduction for aiding and abetting in TCK Article 39 and the new special provision must be assessed separately as a matter of law; a fixed outcome for everyone cannot be calculated by applying the two reductions one after the other. [1] [2]

More favorable law and special transitional provisions for earlier convictions

For acts committed earlier, the principle of the more favorable law in TCK Article 7 requires an assessment according to the stage of the file, including final judgments. In addition, Transitional Article 1 of Law No. 7589 contains special provisions for certain files. For files in which a judgment was rendered before entry into force and to which the new TCK Article 158/4 may apply, special reversal or remand procedures have been regulated for the stages before the criminal chambers of the regional courts of appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi) and the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı). The authority before which the judgment is pending must therefore be determined specifically. [1] [2]

Transitional Article 1/7 also grants a special opportunity, tied to compensation of the loss, for certain judgments at the enforcement stage that meet the specified conditions. Convicted persons to whom TCK Article 168 was not previously applied and to whom the new TCK Article 158/4 may apply can benefit from TCK Article 168/2 if they fully compensate the victim’s loss within six months of the court’s formal notice (ihtar). The period does not start from the date on which the law was published. The provision also covers the specified files in which a judgment was rendered before entry into force and which later became final because no legal remedy was sought. [2]

Unless the loss is fully compensated within this period, no decision to defer or suspend enforcement may be given under this transitional paragraph. This limitation should not be generalized to all other enforcement applications. Moreover, the payment condition is not a general requirement added to the reduction in TCK Article 158/4 itself; it relates to the TCK Article 168 opportunity in the transitional provision. The review should be carried out with the copy of the decision, information on finality and enforcement, the previous application of effective repentance and the date of the formal notice. [2]

Does a MASAK report alone prove guilt?

The type of report and the records on which it is based must be identified

MASAK produces financial intelligence from suspicious transaction reports and other data and carries out assessments and examinations. Analysis reports, laundering examination reports and reports on determining the value obtained from the offense under Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) are not prepared for the same purpose. Until the title of the document in the file, the requesting authority, the review period and the annexes have been identified, all documents should not be treated as a single “MASAK report.” [3] [5]

A report may make the relationship between accounts visible and provide a strong basis for the investigation. However, the final legal characterization of the offense, the form of participation and the conditions for conviction are assessed by the judicial authorities. The fact that MASAK may make findings containing legal assessments does not mean that every conclusion in the report binds the court. The criminal court’s assessment must be based on lawfully obtained evidence and on its discussion during the trial. [3] [5]

While one report may find that an account received investor payments, the identity of the person who actually managed the account may not yet have been clarified. In another file, by contrast, bank records, instruction correspondence and cash withdrawal footage may point to the same person. For this reason, neither of the two general statements “a MASAK report is never sufficient” and “if there is a MASAK report, the offense is certain” is accurate. It must be explained which fact the report shows with which data.

Transaction volume, the victim’s loss and personal benefit must be distinguished

In a representative example, suppose the same 200,000 Turkish lira (TL) is transferred successively among three accounts. Adding up the three transfers may show a transaction volume of 600,000 TL; this arithmetic alone does not mean a victim loss of 600,000 TL or that each account holder obtained a gain of 200,000 TL. The function of the example is to show that total movement and money whose source and ultimate beneficiary have been identified are different concepts.

In a real examination, there may be payments from other victims, independent sources, partial refunds and new inflows of money. Therefore, counting all transfers as a single sum of money is not correct either. The account holder should explain why a particular line was counted twice or mixed up with legitimate income; the victim, in turn, should show which subsequent transaction the amount they sent has been linked to. Gross inflow, total outflow, the amount remaining in the person’s hands and the loss should be calculated separately.

How can an objection to the report be made concrete?

Merely saying “I do not accept the report” does not make the technical or factual problem visible. By specifying the relevant date and transaction line, one may request the original bank statement, the transfer reference, the recipient’s details and, where available, session and authorization records. A commercial payment defense should be supported by a genuine contract, delivery or service record. If there is thought to be an error in the technical matching, an additional examination or, on a matter requiring expertise, an examination by a court-appointed expert may be requested. The prosecutor’s duty to collect both favorable and unfavorable evidence is also the basis of this application. [3]

The request should explain which allegation the person is responding to: receiving the money, withdrawing it, handing over the account, or concealing the source? Access restrictions and confidentiality provisions in the file are also taken into account. It cannot be said that there is a right to freely obtain the content of a suspicious transaction report from the bank; Law No. 5549 provides for the confidentiality of reports. Nevertheless, one may ask about the shareable legal basis, the scope and the authority for applications concerning the existing account restriction. [4]

Are fraud, laundering and the disclosure of transactions on behalf of another separate offenses?

Not every money transfer constitutes a laundering offense

TCK Article 282/1 regulates the transfer abroad of asset values derived from an offense whose minimum penalty is at least six months’ imprisonment, or subjecting them to transactions for the purpose of concealing their illegitimate source or giving them a legitimate appearance. The conditions of these two alternative acts should not be transposed wholesale from one to the other: the special purpose of concealment or of giving a legitimate appearance specified in the article is written for the option of subjecting assets to transactions. [1]

That the money is derived from an offense, that the account holder knew this, and the laundering conduct attributed to them must be specified concretely. The use of crypto-assets, the speed of a transaction or its passing through several accounts may call for investigation; these features alone are not proof of all the elements of the offense. The separate provision of TCK Article 282/2 on purchasing, accepting, possessing or using the value that is the subject of the offense, knowing this characteristic, without participating in the offense in the first paragraph, must also be assessed under the correct paragraph. [1]

Why should Article 15 of Law No. 5549 not be overlooked?

Article 15 of Law No. 5549 separately penalizes a person who, in a transaction requiring identification with an obliged entity, acts in their own name but on behalf of another and fails to disclose in writing, before the transaction, on whose behalf they are acting. The current text provides for imprisonment from six months to one year or a judicial fine of up to five thousand days. This is not a general prohibition automatically applied to every sharing of an IBAN; the transaction and disclosure conditions set out in the article are investigated. [4]

The inability to prove intent to defraud does not make it unnecessary to examine the special conditions of another offense. Conversely, a breach of the disclosure obligation does not, by itself, prove that the person knew investors were being defrauded. Where there is more than one criminal allegation, the timing and scope of the acts and the provisions on concurrence of offenses must be assessed separately. The professional obligations of a person who keeps accounting records must, in turn, be examined separately from the account holder’s conduct. [1] [4]

What is the difference between an account block, the 48-hour suspension and seizure?

The statement “There is a MASAK block on my account” does not, on its own, show the applicable period or the authority to which an application should be made. The bank’s transaction security check, the suspension under CMK Article 128/A, the postponement under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 and judicial seizure are different legal bases. First, the type, date, competent authority and amount covered by the decision or act must be identified. [3] [4] [6]

The periods in the table cannot be used interchangeably. If there is a new and valid judicial decision, the expiry of the initial suspension or postponement period does not mean that all restrictions on the account will be lifted. Likewise, an indefinite restriction whose basis is not explained cannot be inferred by using the name of the initial measure. [3] [4]

When and how do the 48 hours under CMK Article 128/A run?

CMK Article 128/A is a special provision on the offenses specified in TCK Articles 142/2-e, 158/1-f and l, and 245. Not every Forex dispute, every cybercrime or mere unauthorized capital markets activity automatically falls within this scope. Where a case falls within its scope, the financial institution may suspend transactions on the account used in the offense for up to 48 hours; it immediately notifies the prosecutor’s office and the account holder of the situation, together with information and documents. If the money has gone to another institution, the inter-institution notification procedure in the law becomes important. [3]

The prosecutor’s 24-hour decision period starts from the account holder’s application to lift the suspension. This period should not be described as a general decision period running from the bank’s initial notification to the prosecutor’s office. While the suspension continues, the benefit that is the subject of the offense may be seized by a judge’s decision or, where delay would be prejudicial, by the prosecutor’s written order. A seizure made without a judge’s decision is submitted for approval within 24 hours; the judge announces the decision within 48 hours of the seizure. Otherwise, the seizure is automatically lifted. The report requirement in CMK Article 128 does not apply to this special seizure. [3]

In a 2026 study, Hakan Gündüz criticizes granting private-law legal entities a direct power to suspend accounts from the standpoint of legal certainty and proposes improving the safeguards for applications. This view does not mean that the power in force does not exist. The practical conclusion is that, alongside rapid protection, reasonable suspicion, the statutory offense, the time limit and the application are reviewed separately. [10]

The seven-business-day MASAK postponement and special seizure

The postponement under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 is aimed at analyzing a transaction that is still being attempted or is ongoing, so that the necessary steps can be taken. In the case of a suspicious transaction report by an obliged entity requesting postponement, the maximum waiting period in the regulation is tied to the date on which the report was made. In a postponement decided on the Presidency’s (Başkanlık) own finding or at the request of a foreign counterpart institution, by contrast, the notification of the decision to the obliged entity is taken as the basis. MASAK’s explanation on calculating the period indicates the day following the report or the notification as the starting day. A business-day period and an hour-based period are not the same calculation. [4] [6] [15]

In the case of urgent seizure under Article 17 of Law No. 5549, by contrast, the prosecutor’s decision is submitted to the judge within 24 hours, and the judge reviews approval within 24 hours at the latest. If approval is given, the report on the value obtained from the offense is obtained within three months and submitted again for the judge’s approval; failure to approve, or failure to obtain the report in time, results in the prosecutor’s decision becoming void. The 24-hour approval period here must not be confused with the 48-hour decision period under CMK Article 128/A. [4]

Objection to seizure, return of assets and the company trustee

For the purposes of CMK Article 128, the report on the value obtained from the offense may, depending on the area of competence, also be obtained from listed institutions other than MASAK; MASAK is not the sole source of every measure. For the general seizure of property or evidence, CMK Articles 123 and 127, and for the conditions of return, CMK Article 131, are assessed separately. A person affected by a seizure should give reasons for requesting that the measure be lifted, that its scope be narrowed or that the assets be returned, depending on the stage of the file and the authority that issued the decision. [3]

For objections to decisions of a judge or a court, unless there is a special provision, the general time limit under CMK Article 268 is two weeks from learning of the decision. This period is not the 48-hour account suspension; nor can it be carried over under the same name to the special application to lift the suspension made to the prosecutor’s office under CMK Article 128/A. A request for return, an objection to the initial decision and a request to lift the measure due to new circumstances may require different assessments. [3]

The appointment of a trustee for company management under CMK Article 133 is a separate measure connected with an offense allegedly committed within the company’s activities and with the need to uncover the material truth. The statutory scope of offenses and the applicable special provisions must be checked. The appointment of a trustee does not mean that the company’s assets automatically pass to the State or are immediately distributed to investors. SPK supervision and a criminal report do not replace a seizure or trustee decision in criminal proceedings either. [3] [14]

With which documents should a person whose account was used without their knowledge apply?

The person should first request, through the verified channels of the relevant financial institution, the shareable basis of the existing restriction, the affected account and amount, the transaction dates and, if any, the file information. If unauthorized access is ongoing, the institution’s security process should be activated; existing messages, notifications and documents that will help examine the incident should be preserved. Altering records or preparing statements on behalf of others does not serve to clarify the truth.

In the application, the way the account was opened, the last legitimate use, the unknown transaction, the date on which the situation was learned and the notification made to the institution can be set out in a timeline. Available bank receipts (dekont) and application numbers are attached; it is requested that the competent authority obtain the opening, identity verification or transaction records that the person cannot obtain by their own means. The opportunity to benefit from the assistance of defense counsel during the statement and file access process is important for identifying favorable evidence. [3]

The e-Devlet account ownership inquiry announced by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (TCMB) in its announcement dated July 29, 2026 allows natural persons to see at which payment and electronic money institutions they hold accounts. If there is an account they do not recognize, they may ask the relevant institution to investigate its opening and authorization. The service is not a universal register showing all bank or crypto accounts; nor does it prove who carried out the money movements. [11] [12]

According to the TCMB’s explanation, the results are for information purposes and do not have the character of an official document. Therefore, the inquiry screen is a starting point for the investigation; it does not replace the actual opening and transaction records. The inquiry does not close the account, lift the block or refund the money. A complaint to the institution about the account record and an application against a judicial seizure should not be regarded as alternatives to each other. [12]

How is the return of the victim’s money pursued alongside the account holder’s defense?

On the victim’s side, the application should show together the amount sent, the date and time, the recipient account, the person who requested the payment and the explanation that led to the payment. If there are several payments, each should be recorded separately, and subsequent transfers of the same money should not be added up again as if they were victim payments. A rapid investigation of the flow of money is useful for reaching the actual beneficiary and for requesting that the existing value be preserved.

CMK Article 128/A/5 allows the benefit that is the subject of the offense and has been seized to be returned to the victim during the investigation or prosecution if it is understood that it belongs to the victim. CMK Article 131/2, on the other hand, sets out together the conditions that the assets seized under Article 128 belong to the victim and are no longer needed as evidence. Which provision applies must be determined; not every account balance is a definitive compensation pool that can be distributed to all victims. Ownership of the money and a specific decision are important for return. [3]

The effective repentance provision of TCK Article 168 with respect to fraud separately determines the effect of compensation on the penalty. The stage before prosecution and the stage after prosecution has begun but before judgment are different; in the case of partial compensation, the victim’s consent is required. The Law No. 7589 transitional provision explained above, on the other hand, is an additional opportunity specific to certain enforcement files. Making a payment does not automatically end the investigation, eliminate all claims or automatically erase a decision already given. [1] [2]

On the account holder’s side, too, the aim is to ensure that the actual use is clarified. Separating legitimate income from money obtained through the offense facilitates both an objection to a disproportionate restriction and the return of the victim’s money to the right person. New solicitations, such as a “money recovery fee” or a request for payment to an IBAN belonging to a different person, should not be regarded as an official return procedure of the existing investigation; the payment process should be verified through the relevant institution and the file. Whether the link between the accounts shows membership of an organization and the reliability of the digital records are, in turn, questions that require separate investigation.

Related articles: Use of a Bank Account in Fraud: Intent, Participation and the Criminal Liability of the Account Holder; Seizure in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Limits, Objection and Routes to Return; Criminal Liability of Company Employees in Forex Investigations: Role, Intent and Participation in the Offense; Criminal Liability of Accountants and Financial Advisers in Forex Investigations: Professional Duty, Intent and Participation; Criminal Organization Allegations and Digital Evidence in Forex Investigations: Corporate Hierarchy, Participation and Defense Rights.

Conclusion

In a Forex investigation, the legal position of the account holder is determined by an examination that starts from the IBAN registered in their name and reaches the actual user of the account, the person’s knowledge and their contribution to the offense. The reduction under TCK Article 158/4, the assessment of the MASAK report and applications against an account restriction are separate questions. The first concrete step is to identify the allegation and the basis of the restriction and to explain the transaction records person by person and date by date. Correctly distinguishing the periods of the 48-hour suspension, the seven-business-day postponement and judicial seizure is equally necessary for establishing actual liability, protecting the victim’s money and lifting unjustified restrictions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will I be punished for fraud just because I gave my IBAN?

Merely sharing an IBAN is not an automatic ground for conviction. The purpose for which the account was given, whether there was a knowing contribution to the commission of the offense and the actual use are investigated. Sharing the account does not mean that all risks have disappeared either; in addition to TCK Articles 157–158, other criminal provisions may also be examined depending on the circumstances of the case. [1] [4]

I let my account be used but did not receive a commission; is that a sufficient defense?

Not receiving a benefit may be an important fact; however, it is not sufficient on its own. A person may also act for the purpose of obtaining an unjust benefit for another. TCK Article 158/4 regulates the purpose of obtaining a benefit for oneself or another. In addition to showing that no payment was received, the defense should set out the stated purpose, the person’s knowledge and their actual contribution. [1] [2]

Does the 2026 provision halve the penalty of everyone who lets their account be used?

No. Participation in TCK Article 157 or 158 must remain limited to the act of giving the payment instrument, or the necessary information and instruments, defined in the article, and the other conditions must be met. A situation in which intent cannot be proven is separate from the question of the reduction. If there are other acts of commission or a managerial role, the scope is assessed separately. [2]

Can I request the new reduction and the payment opportunity in my final judgment?

A more-favorable-law review may be carried out depending on the date and stage of the file. In addition, Transitional Article 1/7 of Law No. 7589 grants, under the specified conditions, the opportunity to benefit from TCK Article 168/2 through full compensation within six months of the court’s formal notice. This opportunity does not apply unconditionally to every convicted person; the previous judgment and the application of effective repentance must be examined. [1] [2]

If my name appears in a MASAK report, can I no longer object?

You can. It may be questioned on account of which transaction the name appears, which records the report used and how the actual use is linked to the person. Requesting additional records or an examination by specifying the relevant line and date is more informative than a general denial. The final assessment of evidence and the legal characterization of the offense belong to the judicial authorities. [3] [5]

When the bank’s 48-hour suspension ends, will the account necessarily be reopened?

The upper limit of the suspension under CMK Article 128/A is 48 hours. However, a lawful seizure or another valid restriction may also have been imposed during this period. First, the basis of the ongoing measure should be ascertained. The 24 hours within which the prosecutor will decide on the application to lift the suspension are calculated from the account holder’s application. [3]

Is an objection to the seven-business-day MASAK postponement made to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği)?

First, it must be determined whether the measure is really a postponement under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 or a judicial seizure. The procedure for objecting to a judge’s decision under the CMK does not automatically apply to a Ministry postponement. If there is a judicial seizure, a judicial application is made depending on the type of decision. Sending a general complaint to the institution does not take the place of the time limit for a judicial objection. [3] [4] [6]

Does seeing a payment account opened without my knowledge on e-Devlet prove my innocence?

The inquiry shows at which payment or electronic money institution an account record exists. It does not, on its own, prove that the account was actually opened without authorization or who carried out the transactions. According to the TCMB, the result is for information purposes and is not an official document. The identity, opening and transaction records at the institution must be examined separately. [11] [12]

If the money in my account is returned to the victim, does the investigation end?

Return is important for the decision on the ownership of the seized value and for compensation of the loss. However, it does not, on its own, result in the investigation being closed. Effective repentance is assessed in light of the person’s act, the stage, full or partial payment and the other relevant conditions. It cannot be accepted that all civil and criminal claims automatically disappear when money is refunded from the account. [1] [3]

Does the appointment of a trustee to a company show that the account holders are guilty?

No. A trustee is a management measure whose conditions are set by law. It does not prove the intent of every account holder or that everyone in the company took part in the same offense. An account restriction, company management and return to the victim require separate decisions; for personal liability, the examination of specific acts and evidence must continue. [1] [3]

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu); in particular Articles 7, 20–22, 30, 37–40, 157–158, 168 and 282. Adopted: September 26, 2004; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete): October 12, 2004, issue 25611. Consolidated text of the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı); for the 2026 amendment of Article 158/4, see also [2]: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr
2. 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); Article 13, Transitional Article 1/6–7 and Article 26. Adopted: July 16, 2026; Official Gazette: July 31, 2026, issue 33326. Text of the law, Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM): cdn.tbmm.gov.tr — Law and publication record: tbmm.gov.tr
3. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu); in particular Articles 63–67, 123, 127–128/A, 131, 133, 147, 160, 217 and 267–268. Adopted: December 4, 2004; Official Gazette: December 17, 2004, issue 25673. CMK Article 128/A was added by Article 22 of Law No. 7571; publication of the relevant amendment: December 25, 2025. Consolidated text of the Ministry of Justice: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr
4. Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds of Crime (Suç Gelirlerinin Aklanmasının Önlenmesi Hakkında Kanun); in particular Articles 3–4, 15, 17 and 19/A. Adopted: October 11, 2006; Official Gazette: October 18, 2006, issue 26323. MASAK legislation text: masak.hmb.gov.tr
5. Regulation on the Examination of the Laundering Offense (Aklama Suçu İncelemesi Hakkında Yönetmelik); in particular Articles 3 and 10–15. Council of Ministers decision: July 3, 2007, 2007/12454; Official Gazette: August 4, 2007, issue 26603. Latest relevant amendment: December 25, 2024, issue 32763. MASAK: masak.hmb.gov.tr
6. Regulation on the Postponement of Transactions within the Scope of the Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds of Crime and the Financing of Terrorism (Suç Gelirlerinin Aklanmasının ve Terörizmin Finansmanının Önlenmesi Kapsamında İşlemlerin Ertelenmesine Dair Yönetmelik); in particular Articles 4–7. Official Gazette: July 29, 2016, issue 29785. MASAK: masak.hmb.gov.tr
7. Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), May 13, 2025, E.2021/26598, K.2025/5964; in particular assessment no. 2 concerning the account-holder defendant and the reversal outcome. Official full text, Legislation and Case-Law Information Bank of the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı Mevzuat ve İçtihat Bilgi Bankası): mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr — Alternative full text, subject to the platform’s access conditions: app.dejure.ai
8. Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, July 11, 2024, E.2024/3645, K.2024/9532; in particular the Events and Facts 1–4, Reasoning and Decision sections. Official full text, Legislation and Case-Law Information Bank of the Ministry of Justice: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr — Alternative full text, subject to the platform’s access conditions: app.dejure.ai
9. Nurullah Kantarcı, “Participation in the Offense of Fraud by Letting a Bank Account Be Used” (“Banka Hesabının Kullandırılması Suretiyle Dolandırıcılık Suçuna İştirak”), Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal (Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2025, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 497–539; in particular p. 533 et seq. and the concluding assessment. DOI: 10.51120/NEUHFD.2025.159. Full text: dergipark.org.tr — Publication record: dergipark.org.tr
10. Hakan Gündüz, “Suspension of the Account Holding the Benefit Obtained through the Commission of Cybercrimes and Seizure Measures” (“Bilişim Suçlarının İşlenmesi Suretiyle Elde Edilen Menfaatin Bulunduğu Hesabın Askıya Alınması ve Elkoyma Tedbirleri”), Hacettepe Law Faculty Journal (Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), August 1, 2026, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 196–229; in particular pp. 225–227. DOI: 10.32957/hacettepehdf.1872070. Publication and full-text link: dergipark.org.tr — PDF: dergipark.org.tr
11. Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası), press announcement on the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Account Ownership Inquiry service, July 29, 2026, no. 2026-30: tcmb.gov.tr
12. Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye, frequently asked questions on “Payment and Electronic Money Institution Account Ownership Inquiry” (“Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşu Hesap Sahipliği Sorgulama”); explanations accessed on October 18, 2026: tcmb.gov.tr
13. Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı), “68 suspects detained in the Grand Bazaar investigation into the laundering of asset values in Istanbul” (“İstanbul’da malvarlığı değerlerinin aklanmasına yönelik Kapalıçarşı soruşturmasında 68 şüpheli gözaltına alındı”), January 6, 2026; news report of the statement of the Istanbul Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor: aa.com.tr
14. Capital Markets Board (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu), “Press Announcement on Unauthorized Leveraged Transactions” (“İzinsiz Kaldıraçlı İşlemlere İlişkin Basın Duyurusu”), February 23, 2023: spk.gov.tr
15. Financial Crimes Investigation Board (Mali Suçları Araştırma Kurulu), “Frequently Asked Questions” (“Sıkça Sorulan Sorular”), question 147: the start of the seven-business-day period in the postponement of transactions; institutional explanation accessed on October 18, 2026: masak.hmb.gov.tr