Keeping the books of a Forex company or filing its tax returns does not by itself make a person liable for the offenses allegedly committed in that company. Criminal liability is determined on the basis of the person’s actual role, the facts the person knew, the transactions the person carried out and the person’s contribution to the commission of the offense; by contrast, knowingly preparing false records, taking part in deceiving investors or concealing the proceeds of crime may go beyond the limits of professional service. The positions of a payroll accounting employee, an independent SMMM, a YMM and a finance manager should be examined separately with respect to tax liability, professional secrecy and MASAK obligations. Clarifying the investor’s loss and the individual defense of the professional both require a complete and lawful assessment of the same accounting records. [1] [2] [3] [4] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Which duty of the accountant is investigated in a Forex investigation?
Is a payroll accounting employee in the same position as an independent financial adviser?
The first question is what work the person undertook for the company. Appearing on the payroll as accounting staff, holding a license as an independent accountant and financial adviser (serbest muhasebeci mali müşavir) and working from outside under a professional service contract are different facts. The job description within the company, the professional license and the authority actually exercised do not substitute for one another. Under TCK Article 20, criminal liability is personal; it is not possible to hold a person who enters into a contract with the company liable for all the transactions of the company’s manager. [1] [2]
Article 2 of Law No. 3568 lists among the activities of an SMMM the keeping of books, the preparation of financial statements and tax returns, the setting up of accounting systems and professional consultancy. Recording the company’s employee wages or preparing tax returns from the documents sent may show the existence of this professional relationship. However, drafting the service contract as limited to accounting does not prevent an investigation into whether the person actually managed investor money or organized fraudulent transactions. The scope of the contract, the bank authorizations and the division of labor in practice are assessed together. [1] [2]
The fact that a person provides services to many companies may support the view that the person did not take part in the internal management of a particular company; on its own, it is not proof of non-liability. Likewise, providing services to only one client does not amount to participation. Before the number of clients, the assessment should examine which documents were accessed during the period of the transactions at issue, who gave the instructions and what decision the professional made. [1] [5]
How are a YMM’s certification duty and a finance manager’s control over money distinguished?
Sworn financial advisory is not the SMMM activity carried out under a different name. Under Article 2 of Law No. 3568, a YMM performs the consultancy and review work specified in the article together with the certification work within the scope of Article 12; a YMM may not keep accounting books and may not open an accounting office. Therefore, in an allegation directed at a YMM, it should first be determined which certification report was prepared, and for which period and transaction. A YMM’s certification liability does not mean that the YMM assumed all of the company’s investment decisions. [2]
A finance manager, on the other hand, may, regardless of title, have the authority to approve payments, use the bank account, stop a refund to an investor or decide where money is to be transferred. These powers can also be used in lawful business activity. The decisive question in a criminal investigation is whether the person used them to knowingly carry on an activity constituting an offense. A finance manager without a professional license may also commit an offense through their own act; and a licensed person cannot be held liable, solely because of their title, for transactions they did not actually manage. [1]
| Position | Duty to be determined first | Fact that does not on its own show complicity | Transaction to be investigated with regard to personal contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll accounting staff | Data entry, payroll, reconciliation, preparing or approving payments | Employment start record and working in the accounting department | Which record they created on whose instructions, whether they took part in the payment decision |
| Independent SMMM | Bookkeeping, tax return and consultancy work undertaken under the contract | Filing the tax return and receiving an ordinary service fee | Preparing or directing a transaction they knew to be false, or facilitating the commission of the offense |
| YMM | Review and certification relating to a specific subject and period | The presence of their signature on a certification report belonging to the company | Which fact was knowingly misstated in the report and its connection with the accusation |
| Finance manager | Accounts, payment approval, fund movements and financial decisions | A managerial title or bank access alone | Actual instructions, control over the money and knowledge of how the offense operated |
This table is not a list of criteria for conviction. Determining the duty provides a starting point for investigating the person’s connection with the transaction at issue; for the outcome, all elements of the offense are assessed. [1] [2]
When can keeping books and filing tax returns be considered participation in an offense?
What is the difference between a lack of professional care and intent?
In fraud or in laundering the proceeds of crime, it is not sufficient to show that there was merely an accounting error. Under TCK Article 21, intent is the knowing and willing realization of the elements in the statutory definition of the offense. The assessment of conditional intent is also made on the basis of whether the person actually foresaw the specific facts. The assessment that a financial adviser was expected to notice the situation because of their experience is not the same as proof of what they actually knew. [1]
Under TCK Article 22, negligent conduct is punishable in the cases expressly provided for by law. Failing to check a document sufficiently, using a wrong account code amid a heavy workload or leaving a professional review incomplete may, where the conditions are met, give rise to financial, administrative or disciplinary liability. One cannot move directly from these shortcomings to an intent to defraud. Nevertheless, where the continuation of a clearly apparent falsehood, payment instructions whose explanations change and knowingly made corrections are considered together, a different assessment of the evidence may be made. [1] [2] [4]
When the knowledge was acquired is especially important. If it is alleged that a person who merely processed documents in the first months later learned that investor money was not being directed to the promised transaction, the entire period of work should not be treated as a single block. The transactions before the person learned this, the instructions given afterwards, notifications and the termination of the service relationship should be tied to separate dates. Later knowledge does not by itself make earlier transactions intentional, just as leaving the job does not undo participation in an offense already committed. [1]
TCK Article 30/1 provides that a person who does not know the material elements of the offense is not deemed to have acted intentionally. Claiming not to know the law is different, however: when TCK Article 4 and Article 30/4 are read together, only an unavoidable mistake as to unlawfulness may produce a special consequence. For this reason, having processed a document one believed to be genuine and believing that a transaction would not be punished despite knowing that it was unauthorized are not the same defense. [1]
A failure to provide a document despite a request for a professional explanation should also be interpreted with care. Missing paperwork does not on its own show that the client committed an offense; it may prevent the review from being completed and may bring separate obligations into play. By contrast, a professional creating a document for a transaction they know was not actually carried out is different from not sufficiently investigating the accuracy of a document given to them. When preparing a defense or an accusation, the correspondence from which the knowledge is inferred and how the shortfall was later remedied should be made concrete. [1] [2] [7]
Do a signature, a password and a power of attorney show who committed the offense?
The presence of the professional’s name on a tax return does not show that they designed every transaction in the content of the document. Conversely, an electronic signature or filing authority cannot be considered insignificant either. The persons who prepared, checked, approved and sent the document should be distinguished on the basis of software user logs, e-mail attachments, transaction dates and delivery documents. If there is a defense that the password was used by others, it should not be left as an abstract statement; it needs to be investigated through access logs and working arrangements. [1] [11]
Technical records also have limits here. The fact that a transaction was made from a user account does not in every case conclusively establish the identity of the person using the keyboard at that moment. The possibilities of a shared computer, delegation of authority, remote access and automatic transfer are assessed on the basis of the specific information in the file. Changing the same record cannot be characterized as concealment of the offense without seeing the reason for the change; a proper accounting correction and knowingly altering the truth should be distinguished from each other. [1] [11]
The authority to prepare a payment and the authority to finalize it should also be shown separately. The staff member who creates the list to be sent to the bank may not have decided on the choice of recipient or the purpose for which the money was sent. Conversely, it may also be alleged that a person without official signing authority actually directed the transfers. For this reason, rather than looking only at the signature circular, it is investigated from whom the payment request came, which document supported it, whose review it passed through and under which authority it was executed. [1] [11]
How are joint perpetration, incitement and aiding distinguished?
TCK Article 37 governs the liability as perpetrators of those who jointly carry out the act in the statutory definition of the offense. The role of a person who prepares documents to deceive investors and also jointly directs the payment arrangements and the fraudulent scheme may be assessed differently from the role of a person who provides support limited to following instructions. Article 38 governs causing another person to form the decision to commit an offense; Article 39 governs facilitating the commission of the offense in the ways listed in the law. The characterization should be based on the content of the person’s contribution. [1]
Aiding also requires a knowing contribution to a specific offense; not every service that generally facilitates the company’s activity is criminal aiding. Conduct carried out after the offense has been completed should also be distinguished in terms of timing: while a promise of assistance given in advance may be assessed within the scope of participation, a later act with no prior connection may constitute the elements of a different offense. The rule of accessoriness in TCK Article 40 and the distinction concerning offenses that require a special status of the perpetrator are applied separately for each specific offense. [1]
Why are tax liability and participation in Forex fraud examined separately?
Is being jointly liable for a tax loss the same as being an accomplice?
Repeated Article 227 of VUK provides, under certain conditions, for the financial liability of professionals who sign tax returns or prepare certification reports. The core issue is the tax loss arising from the information in the return or the report not conforming to the book entries and supporting documents. Joint liability with the taxpayer for the relevant tax, penalties and late-payment interest does not mean that it has been established by judgment that the person intentionally took part in taking the investor’s money. The certification liability under Article 12 of Law No. 3568 should also be assessed within its own scope. [2] [4]
A professional disciplinary review, the collection of a tax receivable and criminal proceedings answer different questions. A statement in a report that the professional review was found insufficient does not substitute for a fraud conviction. Conversely, the payment of the tax debt does not by itself eliminate an independent act of fraud or forgery. The factual findings in the files should be compared; it should be clearly shown which type of liability and which period each decision concerns. [1] [2] [4]
If the document at the center of the liability debate is a YMM certification report, the conclusion page alone is not enough. The scope of the report, the documents it relies on, the review carried out, the reservations and the annexes should be read together. A statement in a report that a particular transaction was found to comply with the legislation does not mean that all the profit promises the company made to investors were verified. However, whether the professional presented their own report to investors as some other form of assurance should, if applicable, be investigated separately. [1] [2]
Which false records are assessed under VUK Article 359?
VUK Article 359 makes certain acts concerning the books, records and documents that must be kept, issued or retained under the tax laws offenses. In an allegation of accounting fraud or of issuing or using fake documents, the type of document, the existence of a genuine transaction and the separate roles of the person who issued it and the person who used it should be determined. A false picture of profits on the platform is not automatically treated as a tax evasion document merely because it is false. Its function in deceiving investors and its character from the standpoint of the tax system are different examinations. [1] [4]
It is possible for a professional to take part in a tax offense; however, which Article 359 act was committed by whom should be made concrete. Bayraklı’s study on participation in tax evasion also discusses the need to determine separately whether the professional is a perpetrator, an instigator or an aider. The study dates from 2017; it is used here for the conceptual distinction and is not a source for current penalty amounts. [13]
VUK Article 360 provides for a reduction of the penalty by half for accomplices who participate in the offenses in Article 359 where they have no interest in their commission. This provision first requires that the conditions for participation in the offense be met; the absence of an interest is not a direct ground for acquittal. Whether an ordinary professional fee can be treated as the same as the interest in the specific accusation cannot be resolved without explaining what the fee was paid for and its connection with the work at issue. Nor is this reduction a general financial adviser reduction applicable to all Forex offenses. [4]
When do the record and reporting provisions of the Capital Markets Law come into play?
Article 112 of Law No. 6362 governs intentional breaches of obligations concerning the books, records and documents within the scope of the law, and, for false financial statements, reports and records, criminal liability under the conditions specified in the article. The fact that a company’s name includes Forex does not show that every document in its accounts is subject to this provision. The place of the entity concerned and of the document in capital markets legislation, the person who prepared the report and the alleged intent should be determined separately. [3]
Article 109/2 may also come into play separately with respect to unauthorized capital market activity. This offense and obtaining investor money through deception do not have the same structure of elements. The requirement of a written application by SPK under Article 115 is a special prerequisite to criminal proceedings for the offenses defined in or referred to by the Law; it cannot be used as a general rule making the investigation of all TCK fraud allegations dependent on an SPK application. [1] [3]
What limits do the Court of Cassation’s financial adviser decisions show?
What evidence is required to move from professional activity to conviction?
The decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi) dated April 28, 2026, numbered E. 2026/37, K. 2026/4332, concerns an accusation of issuing fake documents directed at a financial adviser. The decision is not a Forex case. In the full text, in addition to the relationships between the companies served and the suspicion arising from certain documents, concrete evidence showing the defendant’s personal participation in the criminal activity was assessed. The acquittal, based on the finding that a contribution beyond professional transactions could not be proven conclusively and convincingly, was upheld with a correction regarding the attorney fee award (vekâlet ücreti). [5]
This decision does not say that all accountants will be acquitted on the ground that they merely recorded the documents given to them. Its value for the case file is that it shows that the professional relationship and contact with other persons cannot on their own be turned into a ground for conviction. Moreover, the absence of sufficient proof for a criminal conviction and the absence of a suspicion requiring a report to MASAK are not the same result; different conditions apply in these two assessments. [5] [7]
How is a request for money for investment made under the title of financial adviser assessed?
The decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) dated October 20, 2025, numbered E. 2025/1336, K. 2025/13318, concerns an allegation that money was obtained with a promise of crypto investment. This is not a Forex decision either. The complaint alleged that the person gained trust by saying they were a financial adviser. The Chamber found it insufficient to treat the relationship merely as a civil dispute without investigating the person’s professional status, the accounts and the money movements, and reversed the decision dismissing the objection in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma). This outcome is not a finding that the suspect is guilty or that they really are a financial adviser. [6]
The two decisions show different limits: just as a professional cannot be treated as an accomplice solely because of a service relationship, the actions of a person who personally asks an investor for money should not be hidden behind their professional title. Where a person who really is a self-employed professional abuses the trust provided by their profession, this is assessed, where the conditions are met, under TCK Article 158/1-i. The use of the title and the fulfillment of all the conditions of this aggravated form should be distinguished from each other. [1] [5] [6]
In which cases should a financial adviser report a suspicious transaction to MASAK?
Is every accounting employee an independent MASAK obliged entity?
MASAK’s groups of obliged entities include independent accountants, SMMMs and YMMs working without being bound to an employer. For this reason, a company’s payroll accounting staff should not be regarded as having the same obliged-entity position as an independent professional merely because they work in this job. Nevertheless, whether the employer is an obliged entity and the employee’s role within the organization are assessed separately. Not being an independent obliged entity does not mean that other statutory obligations to provide information and documents do not exist either. [7] [8] [10]
The exceptions relating to attorney activities cannot be applied as they are to financial advisers. The scope of each professional group is determined according to its own rules. MASAK’s profession-specific reporting guide dated June 16, 2025 sets out the reporting method in concrete terms for members of the accounting and financial advisory profession working independently. The guide does not create an offense or a penalty; it is an implementation document concerning the fulfillment of an obligation arising from the law. [7] [8] [9]
Is it necessary to be sure that an offense has been committed or to wait for a case to be filed?
No. Article 4 of Law No. 5549 is based on the existence of any information, suspicion or matter requiring suspicion that the assets subject to transactions carried out or attempted with or through the obliged entity were obtained through illegal means or are used for illegal purposes. A conviction, an expert report or the start of a prosecutor’s investigation is not awaited. The report should describe the specific transaction and the grounds for the suspicion; unverified assessments should not be written as if they were a definitive accusation of an offense. [7]
The profession-specific guide includes indicators such as concealment of the beneficial owner, an unexplained commercial relationship between the parties and the establishment of a company solely for the purpose of transferring money. These do not mean that every similar transaction involves an offense; they help the obliged entity assess the transaction in its own context. If a Forex company’s payment movements do not match its contracts, the mere fact that the accounting record is formally in order does not render this inconsistency insignificant. [7] [9]
Under Article 5 of MASAK General Communiqué No. 13, the report is made within ten business days at the latest from the date on which the suspicion arose, and immediately in cases where delay would be prejudicial. The starting point of the period is not when the company was complained about in general, but the date on which the relevant suspicion arose for the obliged entity. The sectoral guide explains the electronic method of reporting; for this reason, preserving the timing and the basis of the assessment in the professional file is important. [9] [10]
Is failing to report the same as taking part in a laundering offense?
No. Breach of the reporting obligation may be subject to an administrative sanction under Article 13 of Law No. 5549. Breach of the prohibition on disclosing a suspicious transaction report, or of the obligations to provide information, retain and produce under Articles 7 and 8 of the Law, is separately subject to a criminal sanction in Article 14. The occurrence of these does not mean that all the elements of the laundering offense in TCK Article 282 have also been met. [7]
On the other hand, making a report does not grant the reporting person immunity for an independent criminal act they knowingly committed earlier. Article 10 provides that no civil or criminal liability arises from fulfilling the statutory obligation and governs the protection of the reporting person. The subject of the protection is the reporting duty; a separate act concerning knowingly concealing the proceeds of crime is not eliminated by the same provision. [1] [7]
Does professional secrecy prevent providing information to the prosecutor’s office and MASAK?
How are the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality applied?
Article 43 of Law No. 3568 provides that professionals and those working with them shall not disclose information and secrets they learn in the course of their work. The same article makes it mandatory to report cases constituting an offense to the competent authorities; it also governs the context of judicial or administrative inquiries and investigations, as well as testimony. These provisions do not mean that all information belonging to a client can be disclosed to everyone. Professional secrecy and a statutory report to the competent authority should be distinguished from each other. [2]
In requests for information and documents under Article 7 of Law No. 5549, the right of defense is also reserved; apart from this, confidentiality provisions in special laws cannot be used as a general ground for refusing to provide information. It should be determined from which authority, under which statutory power and for which records the request came; the requested information should be submitted in the proper manner. Attaching unrelated information belonging to other clients to the file en masse is not the same as responding to a request of defined scope. [7]
The suspicious transaction report itself is subject to special confidentiality. Article 4/2 of the Law prohibits disclosing that a report has been made to persons, including the parties to the transaction, other than the inspectors assigned to supervise compliance with the obligations and the courts during proceedings. A professional telling their client that they made a report, relying on the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality, would not comply with this prohibition. Informing the professional chamber, reporting an offense to the prosecutor’s office and sending a suspicious transaction report to MASAK also do not automatically substitute for one another. [2] [7]
What rights does a financial adviser summoned as a witness have?
CMK Article 46/1-c governs the right of advisers engaged in financial matters to refuse to testify regarding information they learned by virtue of that status. The exception concerning the consent of the person concerned in Article 46/2 should also be taken into account. The fact that testimony is not considered disclosure of secrets under Law No. 3568 is not a reason to disregard the right to refuse under CMK. The status in which the information was learned, the subject of the summons and the consent of the person concerned are assessed together. [2] [11]
CMK Article 48, in turn, governs the witness’s right to refuse to answer questions that could expose them or their relatives specified in the law to criminal prosecution. If the person is being heard as a suspect, the rights under CMK Article 147 to learn the accusation, to benefit from the assistance of defense counsel and to remain silent also apply. For this reason, it should be clarified before the statement whether one is a witness or a suspect. These rights do not confer authority to submit false documents or to destroy records. [11]
The reference in Article 47 of Law No. 3568, for offenses committed during or because of professional duties, to the provisions of TCK concerning public officials, depending on the nature of the act, is also assessed separately. The article does not turn all professional faults into the same offense. The scope of the special penal provisions in Article 49 and of disciplinary sanctions should also be determined on the basis of the specific conduct. [2]
How is receiving a professional fee distinguished from laundering the proceeds of crime?
TCK Article 282/1 governs transferring abroad asset values derived from an offense of a certain gravity, or subjecting them to transactions for the purpose of concealing their illegitimate source or creating the impression that they were obtained by legitimate means. Article 282/2, in turn, separately addresses purchasing, accepting, possessing or using such asset values, knowing their nature, without participating in the offense in the first paragraph. These elements are examined separately for each money transfer, accounting record or collection. [1]
An ordinary service contract, the documents of the work done, the self-employment receipt (serbest meslek makbuzu) or the relevant fee document and the bank receipt (dekont) may explain the professional consideration for the payment. However, writing consultancy in the description of a payment does not by itself refute an allegation that it was actually a transfer of the proceeds of crime. The fee’s relationship to the actual service, its amount, its timing, the person who made the payment and the recipient’s knowledge are assessed together. Just as receiving an ordinary fee is not automatic evidence of an offense, a fee document does not provide absolute protection either. [1] [2]
Committing the laundering offense in the course of carrying out a professional activity is a ground for increasing the penalty under TCK Article 282/3. This consequence arises only when the conditions of the laundering offense and the connection with the professional activity are established. In an allegation that investor money was given the appearance of a legitimate commercial transaction through a false document, it is therefore especially important with whose knowledge and on whose direction the recording was made. [1]
TCK Article 158/4, added by Law No. 7589 in 2026, is a penalty reduction specific to the situation where participation in fraud is limited to giving another person the payment instruments, or the necessary information and tools enabling the use of an account, for the purpose of unjust gain. It is not a general provision applicable to every accountant or to every employee who receives a wage. The details of letting others use accounts and of money movements are discussed separately in the eighth article of the series, devoted to this question. A more favorable law assessment should also be made separately for past events. [1] [12]
Which accounting records should be examined together in the investigation?
Selecting only the records that appear unfavorable is not sufficient to determine the limits of professional activity. CMK Article 160 provides that the public prosecutor shall collect evidence both in favor of and against the suspect. The professional’s explanation should be compared with the scope of the service, the actual flow of documents and the transactions forming the accusation. For the investor too, establishing who took part in which payment request is more useful than listing the names of everyone with a relationship to the company. [11]
| Question to be answered | Records that can be examined together | Limit to be observed in the assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Which work had the person undertaken? | Service contract, job description, license, power of attorney and handover records | Written authority and actual practice may differ |
| When did they become aware of the transaction at issue? | Dated correspondence, document requests, objections, meeting and notification records | Information learned later cannot be carried back to the entire earlier period |
| Who created the record or the payment? | Software user logs, document versions, bank approvals and access information | The user account and the actual user are not identical in every case |
| Was the payment a service fee? | Contract, self-employment receipt or fee document, work delivered and bank transaction | The transfer description does not on its own prove the actual legal basis |
| What happened to the investor’s money? | Investor’s bank receipt, company account, refund record, reconciliation and related transaction document | The balance on the screen does not substitute for the actual movement of money |
The technical examination needed for this comparison may be requested from a court-appointed expert. However, the legal assessment of which person committed which offense cannot be reduced to a technical reconciliation of accounts. If a report is thought to confuse transaction dates or document types, the objection should point to the erroneous record and the counter-document rather than merely saying that the report is not accepted. The lawfulness of the evidence to be relied on in the judgment is also assessed within the framework of CMK Article 217. [11]
A request for examination should not be limited to attaching the entire accounting archive to the file. First, the investor payment in dispute, the relevant period and the person’s connection with this matter should be shown. Then the reason for the difference between the company record and the bank transaction can be asked. The fact that the accounting balance is not the same as the actual bank balance does not on its own explain which person committed an offense; period-end transactions, offsetting entries (mahsup) and other documented account movements should also be taken into account. [4] [11]
Records should not be altered afterwards to make them appear consistent with the defense. Where a proper correction is required, the earlier record and the reason and date of the correction should be distinguishable. Statutory retention and production obligations do not end automatically when the service contract ends. The eight-year retention obligation within the scope of Article 8 of Law No. 5549 should not be used as a single general period replacing the record retention periods in other legislation. [4] [7]
Why is the accountant’s position important in remedying the investor’s loss?
Showing investor money in the records as a customer debt, capital, an advance or another payment does not on its own resolve to whom the money actually belongs and on what legal basis it is held. The contract, the bank receipt and the refund request should be examined together. Accounting records may help locate assets and separate the transactions of the persons whose liability is alleged; the accountant’s knowledge of these records does not mean that they must pay all investor losses from their personal assets. [1] [4] [11]
The victim may submit the payment documents in their possession and their correspondence with the person who claimed to be a financial adviser to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) or to law enforcement. The allegation should be built on the transaction the person directly carried out: the dates of facts such as asking for money, explaining why a refund was stopped, sending a false document or directing a particular transfer are important. The procedure for criminal reports and complaints is governed by CMK Article 158; filing a complaint does not automatically result in the collection of all items of loss. [6] [11]
In the application, the transaction the investor saw personally should also be distinguished from information heard from others. The person personally saying they are a professional, the company presenting them as an accountant and confirmation of this status in the official record are different sources of information. If the title has been used falsely, proceeding on assumptions about a real professional may lead to targeting the wrong person. For this reason, establishing identity and role is part of investigating through which transactions the loss arose. [2] [6] [11]
Liability for compensation in a civil action is examined under conditions separate from complicity in the criminal file. All of the company’s debts to investors cannot be imposed on the financial adviser solely on the basis of the existence of a professional contract. Conversely, the emergence of the person’s specific act in the deception of investors may affect both the investigation of the offense and the legal assessment of the loss. Measures concerning assets, an organization-related accusation and the seizure of digital records fall within the scope of the ninth article of the series. [1] [11]
Related articles: Allegation of Using Fake Invoices: VAT Deduction, Tax Penalty and Proof; Who Is Liable for a Joint-Stock Company’s Tax Debt? Distinguishing Shareholders, the Board of Directors and the Legal Representative; Use of a Bank Account in Fraud: Intent, Participation and the Criminal Liability of the Account Holder; Criminal Liability of Company Employees in Forex Investigations: Role, Intent and Participation in the Offense; 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
In Forex investigations, the position of an accountant or financial adviser cannot be determined collectively on the basis of their connection with the company. The scope of the professional duty, the timing of the transaction at issue, the person’s knowledge and their specific contribution should each be established separately. The conditions of tax liability, MASAK obligations and professional discipline are not the same as the conditions for participation in fraud or laundering.
A rigorous examination of the file requires that the records proving ordinary accounting services and the transactions allegedly carried out knowingly be assessed with the same clarity. Documents showing the actual movement of the money from the investor’s perspective, and the limits of the duty and of the knowledge from the professional’s perspective, should be preserved. The next legal step should be chosen after determining the specific accusation directed at the person and the obligation to be applied.
Frequently Asked Questions
I only filed the tax returns of a Forex company; will I be considered an accomplice?
This act alone does not constitute complicity. It is investigated whether you knew of the false content and through which act you contributed to the commission of the alleged offense. Filing authority should be examined separately from preparation and review duties. Details are in the section on bookkeeping and participation. [1] [2]
Does my being able to see all of the company’s bank movements prove that I was aware of the offense?
Not on its own. The information you could access and the information you actually learned may differ. Which movement you examined on which date, whether you knew its explanation and the action you took afterwards are decisive. The distinctions regarding the date of knowledge and the actual user in the evidence table are used for this purpose. [1] [11]
If my signature is on a YMM certification report, will I be liable for all of the investors’ losses?
No. The subject and period of the certification and the conditions of liability should be determined. The financial liability under Law No. 3568 and VUK does not mean that all of the company’s debts to investors pass automatically to the YMM. An allegation of a personal criminal act is assessed separately. [1] [2] [4]
Is receiving a normal fee from the company evidence of laundering or participation?
The fee payment may be investigated; on its own, it does not lead to a finding of laundering or participation. The actual service, the contract, the self-employment receipt or fee document and the bank movement are assessed together. The professional consideration for the payment should be distinguished from knowledge of and contribution to the money movement at issue. [1] [2]
Can an independent SMMM wait for the offense to be finally established before reporting a suspicious transaction?
No. The statutory threshold is information, suspicion or a matter requiring suspicion. The report should be made within ten business days at the latest from the moment the suspicion arises, and immediately in cases where delay would be prejudicial. Looking for evidence sufficient for a criminal conviction may lead to missing the reporting period. [7] [10]
Can I tell my client that I made a MASAK report about them?
No. Article 4/2 of Law No. 5549 prohibits disclosing to third parties, including the parties to the transaction, that a report has been made, and regulates the exceptions narrowly. The fact that professional secrecy does not prevent the reporting obligation does not mean that the report can be disclosed to the client. [7]
Must a financial adviser summoned as a witness answer every question?
No. The provisions on refusing to testify on professional grounds in CMK Article 46 and on refusing to give answers incriminating oneself or certain relatives in Article 48 are assessed. The exception for the consent of the person concerned in Article 46 should also be taken into account. Being heard in the status of a suspect brings different defense rights into play. [11]
Does leaving the company or terminating the contract end all liability?
No. Earlier acts are assessed according to the knowledge and contribution at the date of the transaction. Termination is important in determining the limit of subsequent duties; obligations to retain records, to hand them over properly and applicable reporting obligations may continue separately. For this reason, it is useful to establish the date of departure with written records. [1] [2] [7]
Does the Court of Cassation’s 2026 acquittal decision concerning a financial adviser apply to every Forex case?
It does not directly lead to the same result. Decision E. 2026/37, K. 2026/4332 concerns an accusation of fake documents in the tax field. The aspect of the decision that requires concrete proof for moving from professional activity to a personal criminal contribution can be compared; the acts and evidence in each Forex case are examined separately. [5]
Sources and legal bases
- Legislation of the Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), adopted on September 26, 2004; in particular Articles 4–5, 7, 20–22, 30, 37–40, 157–158 and 282. Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı), legislative text: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr. For Article 158/4, see also [12].
- Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı), Law No. 3568 on Independent Accountancy and Financial Advisory and Sworn Financial Advisory (Serbest Muhasebeci Mali Müşavirlik ve Yeminli Mali Müşavirlik Kanunu), adopted on June 1, 1989; in particular Articles 2, 12, 43 and 47–49, consolidated law page: istanbul.gib.gov.tr. Direct article page for Article 43: gib.gov.tr.
- Capital Markets Board (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu), Law No. 6362, Capital Markets Law (Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu), adopted on December 6, 2012; in particular Articles 109, 112 and 115, consolidated text: mevzuat.spk.gov.tr.
- Revenue Administration, Law No. 213, Tax Procedure Law (Vergi Usul Kanunu), adopted on January 4, 1961; in particular repeated Article 227 and Articles 359–360, consolidated law page: istanbul.gib.gov.tr. Direct article page for Article 360: gib.gov.tr.
- 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, April 28, 2026, E. 2026/37, K. 2026/4332, upholding an acquittal on an accusation of issuing fake documents, with a correction as to the attorney fee award; official full text: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr.
- 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, October 20, 2025, E. 2025/1336, K. 2025/13318, reversal in the interest of the law, on the ground of an incomplete investigation, of a decision dismissing the objection in an allegation of fraud with a promise of crypto investment; official full text: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr.
- Financial Crimes Investigation Board (Mali Suçları Araştırma Kurulu), Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds of Crime (Suç Gelirlerinin Aklanmasının Önlenmesi Hakkında Kanun), adopted on October 11, 2006; in particular Articles 2, 4, 7–8, 10 and 13–14, consolidated law text: masak.hmb.gov.tr.
- Financial Crimes Investigation Board, Obliged Entities (Yükümlüler), groups of obliged entities under the Regulation on Measures (Tedbirler Yönetmeliği) and independently working members of the accounting profession: masak.hmb.gov.tr.
- Financial Crimes Investigation Board, Suspicious Transaction Reporting Guide for Independent Accountants, Independent Accountants and Financial Advisers, and Sworn Financial Advisers Working Without Being Bound to an Employer (Bir İşverene Bağlı Olmaksızın Çalışan Serbest Muhasebeci, Serbest Muhasebeci Mali Müşavir ve Yeminli Mali Müşavirler Şüpheli İşlem Bildirim Rehberi), (MSK-RHB-ŞİB-018-1.0), June 16, 2025; scope, reporting procedure and types of suspicious transactions: ms.hmb.gov.tr.
- Financial Crimes Investigation Board, MASAK General Communiqué No. 13 (MASAK Genel Tebliği Sıra No.13), in particular Articles 5, 9 and 11–13, consolidated text: masak.hmb.gov.tr.
- Legislation of the Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), adopted on December 4, 2004; in particular Articles 46, 48, 63, 147, 158, 160 and 217. Ministry of Justice, legislative text: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr.
- Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi), 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 on July 16, 2026, the fourth paragraph added to TCK Article 158 by Article 13; adopted law text: cdn.tbmm.gov.tr.
- Hasan Hüseyin Bayraklı, Participation in the Offense of Tax Evasion and the Criminal Liability of Financial Advisers (Vergi Kaçakçılığı Suçuna Katılma (İştirak) ve Mali Müşavirlerin Adli Ceza Sorumluluğu), Journal of the Justice Academy of Türkiye (Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi), year 7, issue 29, January 2017, pp. 1–22, especially pp. 16–19. Publication record: dergipark.org.tr. Full text: dergipark.org.tr.