Criminal Investigations, Seizure and Remedying Investor Losses in Investment Funds Under Liquidation

A decision to liquidate an investment fund does not mean that the investor’s loss will be compensated automatically or that the fund’s managers committed an offense. A criminal investigation can contribute to remedying the loss by identifying suspicious transactions, the persons responsible and the assets connected with the offense. Nevertheless, seizure, confiscation, return to the victim and liquidation payments produce different legal consequences. In the framework of the fund interventions of September 2026 and verified judicial developments, this article examines the investor’s rights of application, the written application of the Capital Markets Board (SPK), the tracing of assets, obtaining evidence from the criminal file and the relationship to be established with an action for damages. The assessments rest on the conditions laid down in the legislation, not on any acceptance of guilt with respect to particular persons.

How can a criminal investigation affect the investor’s access to their money?

The first question for an investor who cannot redeem their fund units is when, and in what amount, they will be able to reach their money. The answer to this question depends primarily on the liquidation decision for the relevant fund, the condition of its assets, the valuation principles and the payment arrangements. The criminal investigation, on the other hand, examines another aspect of the same events: it seeks to determine whether there was conduct that may constitute an offense in the use of fund resources, in market transactions or in the information given to investors. The fact that the two processes run during the same period does not mean that their functions and outcomes are the same. [1] [2] [3] [7]

The investigation’s contribution to remedying the loss can arise in three areas. First, transaction and account records that the investor could not reach by their own means may be obtained. Next, the persons who made, implemented or benefited from the decisions may be identified. Finally, where the statutory conditions are met, steps may be taken to preserve assets connected with the offense and to return them to the rightful holder. These possibilities make it easier to support the allegation with concrete evidence; they do not create an enforceable judgment for compensation directly in favor of the investor. [7]

For example, where it is alleged that a fund asset was transferred to a related person at a low price, showing only the current fund price is not sufficient. The value on the date of transfer, the counterparty’s connection, whether the price was actually paid and the roles of the persons who approved the transaction should be investigated. Such an examination serves to assess both the suspicion of an offense and the amount that may be reclaimed. The example here shows the questions that need to be investigated; it does not contain any claim that such a transaction has been finally established in any of the funds named.

Which decisions in the September 2026 interventions should be distinguished from one another?

The SPK’s decisions of September 17, 2026 regulated trading restrictions concerning the funds founded by the Tera, Pusula, Hedef, Atlas, A1 Capital, Pardus and Bulls portfolio management companies, and the liquidation of certain funds. The closing of the funds’ TEFAS trading, the liquidation of the listed funds and the termination of the portfolio company’s legal personality are not the same act. The assignment of liquidation and custody duties to banks should also be assessed separately. [1] [3]

SPKn Article 96(1), cited as the basis in the first decision, governs the Board’s power to take administrative measures against unlawful activities of capital market institutions. Article 97, by contrast, is a separate provision concerning capital adequacy, payment or delivery obligations and the deterioration of the financial structure; subject to its conditions, it includes powers such as suspending activities, compensating investors and gradual liquidation. For this reason, without a separately issued decision being shown, the liquidation of certain funds cannot be characterized as the gradual liquidation of the company under Article 97 or as a compensation decision by YTM. Both provisions differ from a criminal court’s seizure order. [1] [2] [11]

For developments in the criminal investigation, the date of the decision, its addressee and subsequent changes should be followed together:

These reports show the status of the investigation on particular dates. Because the reports do not contain the full reasoning of the underlying judicial decisions, it is not possible to determine in full detail which measure was applied to which asset and on what grounds. The reports do not support the conclusion that there is a final conviction, that the same offense was committed in all funds or that the same measure remains in place against every company.

The bill and the provisions in force

Regarding the bill with docket No. 2/3939 submitted to TBMM on October 9, 2026, a statement of adoption was made in the Planning and Budget Committee (Plan ve Bütçe Komisyonu) on October 14. In the check of October 18, 2026, the status of the bill in TBMM records still appears as pending in committee. For this reason, the recovery, liability and payment mechanisms envisaged in the bill cannot be considered to have been applied as provisions of a special law in force. The payment arrangements arising from the existing SPK decisions and the arrangements envisaged by the bill should be read separately. [14] [15]

Why should the fund’s assets be kept separate from the managers’ assets?

SPKn Article 53 separates the fund’s assets from the assets of the portfolio management company and of the custodian. It provides special protection for fund assets; even the transfer of management or supervision to public institutions does not allow these assets to be used for other purposes. The provision also provides for payments to the holders of participation shares in the liquidation of the fund. [2]

The special protection in the law should also be taken into account with respect to the attachment of fund assets, the imposition of an interim injunction on them and their inclusion in the bankruptcy estate. An investor seeking personal compensation from a manager or the portfolio company cannot treat all of the fund’s assets as a general source of attachment for that person’s debt. The ownership and the judicial protection regime of a particular asset alleged to be the subject of an offense are, in turn, examined separately. [2]

This distinction lies at the center of the loss-recovery strategy. Distributing the fund’s existing assets to unitholders by selling them and holding a manager liable with their own assets for an unlawful transaction are different legal relationships. In the first case, the liquidation assets and the participation share ratios matter; in the second, the basis of liability, the loss, the causal link and the correct defendant become important.

The return of an asset alleged to have been unlawfully removed from the fund also does not always take the form of a payment made directly into the account of a particular investor. It should be determined whether the claim relates to the fund’s assets or to the investor’s personal loss. Remedying the fund’s loss may improve the unitholder’s economic position; it does not follow that every unitholder may claim the whole of the same amount on behalf of the fund. Holding participation shares should not be assessed on the assumption that each individual asset in the fund belongs individually to the investor. [2] [7]

For this reason, the legal ownership of the asset should be shown first in the application. In whose name was the account opened? Was the suspicious transaction made to the fund’s account? Was the money sent to a personal account or to a related company? Who exercises the authority to seek return on behalf of the fund? A general request to “cover my loss from all the assets,” prepared without answering these questions, may confuse different pools of assets and different rights holders.

Which conduct may require criminal examination?

Insider trading and market fraud

Under SPKn Article 106, the assessment centers on the use, in the relevant capital market transactions, of information that has not yet been disclosed to the public and is capable of affecting investment decisions, and on obtaining a benefit. The issue to be examined is not only whether a gain was obtained from the transaction; it is the nature of the information, how the person obtained it and the connection between the order and the information. [2]

In transaction-based market fraud under SPKn Article 107(1), on the other hand, the aim of creating a misleading impression about price, supply and demand through purchases, sales, orders or account movements is significant. Article 107(2) governs obtaining a benefit through false, incorrect or misleading information and similar statements aimed at influencing investor decisions or prices. A rise or fall in a fund’s price, or a large number of transactions within a short period, does not take the place of these elements. [2]

Concentration of the fund in particular shares, reciprocal transactions with related accounts, unusual order cancellations or statements alleged not to reflect the truth may be the subject of investigation. However, the economic explanation of the trading strategy, the fund’s investment limits and the actual roles of the counterparties should also be assessed. It is not correct to build the criminal file on an assumption that retroactively characterizes ordinary market risk as an offense.

Breach of trust and disguised profit transfer

SPKn Article 110 specifically governs certain acts of breach of trust and acts relating to records. In particular, Article 110(1)(c) covers, under certain conditions, the reduction of the assets or earning opportunities of collective investment undertakings through transactions carried out with related persons. It needs to be assessed together with the prohibition on disguised profit transfer in Article 21. By contrast, each subparagraph of Article 110 does not apply in the same way to every portfolio management company and to every transaction in every fund. [2]

The examination cannot rest solely on the finding that “a loss occurred.” The related-party connection, comparable prices, the economic purpose of the transaction, the performance of the counter-obligation and the decision-making process are important. For example, the failure to collect a receivable may be a bad investment decision, a breach of contract or, where the conditions are met, an intentional transfer of resources. Because the same outcome may arise from different legal causes, criminal liability should be investigated transaction by transaction.

TCK offenses and personal liability

Depending on the elements of the specific act, the TCK provisions on fraud, breach of trust, forgery or laundering may also come into play. Market fraud under the SPKn and fraud under the TCK are not the same offense merely because the same word is used. The relationship between the special and general provisions, and how many separate liabilities may arise from the same act, require legal characterization. [2] [8]

Under TCK Article 20, criminal liability is personal. Being a shareholder, manager or employee of a company does not by itself indicate participation in an offense. Who gave the order, what the person knew, what conduct they carried out and how they contributed to the commission of the offense should be investigated. The roles of third parties and employees connected with the company should also be examined with the same care. Security measures that may be applied to legal entities are, moreover, kept separate from the criminal liability of natural persons. [8]

How is an application to the SPK related to a complaint to the prosecutor’s office?

SPKn Article 115(1) makes the SPK’s written application to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) a prerequisite to the criminal proceedings for offenses defined in, or referred to by, the Law. Accordingly, for allegations under Article 106, Article 107 or Article 110, a petition submitted by the investor to the prosecutor’s office does not take the place of the Board’s statutorily required written application. Nor does the SPK’s liquidation decision by itself show that a written criminal application has been made concerning the same acts and persons. [2]

This requirement does not prevent the investor from reporting the events. An application to the Board may set out the full name and code of the fund, the dates of the transactions, the conduct considered suspicious and the documents at hand. The petition submitted to the prosecutor’s office may also request that the relevant SPK examination or application be looked into. Stating the existing investigation number, if any, makes it easier for the same events to be assessed together with connected files. [2] [7]

If the elements of an independent TCK offense are present, the investigation conditions for that offense are assessed separately. Not all TCK offenses can be made subject to SPK authorization merely because one of the parties is a capital market institution. On the other hand, simply describing the same act under another name does not remove the requirement in Article 115. What determines the legal effect of the application is the act described rather than the heading given to the petition.

When a public prosecution is brought following the SPK’s application, the Board’s acquiring the status of intervening party by operation of law likewise does not give the investor an automatic right to intervene. The investor’s status and connection as a person harmed by the offense are assessed with respect to their own application. [2] [7]

What rights does the investor have in the investigation file?

Report, complaint and registration in the file

Under CMK Article 158, a report or complaint may be made to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor or to the law enforcement authorities. Registration of the application does not mean that all of the applicant’s requests have been accepted or that a compensation claim has been established. The investor should keep copies of the petition, its annexes and the application record and, where applicable, follow up on whether a link with the existing file has been established. [7]

The application should separately show the amount invested, the dates on which units were purchased, the redemption instructions that were not executed and the payments received subsequently. A connection should be made between the conduct alleged to give rise to suspicion of an offense and the outcome the investor personally experienced. It may be useful for a large number of investors to report common events; this does not remove the need for each of them to show their transaction and loss information separately.

Requesting evidence and access to copies of documents

CMK Article 234 governs the rights to request the collection of evidence during the investigation phase and to request copies of documents from the prosecutor, provided that the confidentiality and purpose of the investigation are not compromised. Article 153 applies to examination through an attorney; Article 153(5) enables the attorney of the person harmed by the offense to benefit from the relevant rights as well. However, it cannot be said that there is unlimited and public access to the investigation file. [7]

If there is a restriction, the legal basis of the decision, its scope and the documents to which it applies should be examined. The exceptions in Article 153 and the differences between the investigation and prosecution phases are taken into account. For the investor, the aim is not to request the entire file indiscriminately but to obtain proper access to the account movements, the expert examination and the copies of decisions that concern their own allegation.

Intervening in the public prosecution and the issue of direct harm

CMK Articles 237-238 govern the intervention of victims and persons harmed by the offense in the public prosecution until judgment is rendered at the court of first instance. Intervention is not a label at the investigation stage; it is a procedural request to be assessed by the court after the public prosecution has been brought. [7]

Holding fund units or being affected by a market decline does not automatically prove the status of a person directly harmed by the offense for every charge. The investor being personally deceived into making a particular transaction and a decrease in the fund’s assets being reflected in the unit value are different links to the harm. The legal interest protected by the alleged offense, against whom the act was directed and how the harm occurred should be explained. Holding fund units should also not be confused with being a shareholder of the portfolio company. The acceptance or rejection of the request to intervene is reasoned on the basis of the specific allegation and the file. [2] [7]

How is the trail of assets connected with the offense investigated?

For the investigation to contribute to collection, money movements should not be followed only as far as the first transfer. The account to which the amount leaving the fund account passed, the asset acquired in return, subsequent transfers and the ultimate beneficiary may be investigated. The information-gathering and investigative powers of the competent authorities are based on the CMK and the relevant special legislation. [7] [12]

The investor may submit the records in their possession for the following purposes:

• Fund and account ownership: The fund’s full name, code, number of units, account statement and, if possible, the record of entitlement.
• Transaction chronology: Dates of purchase, redemption, cancellation and payment; instruction numbers; responses from institutions.
• Suspicious conduct: A specific statement, correspondence, transaction document or related-party connection.
• How the loss appears: Initial payments, previous redemptions, liquidation payments and the residual loss claimed.

For the record of fund transactions, data held by the distributing institution, the custodian, Takasbank, MKK and the relevant market infrastructures may be important. Which data is held by which institution is determined according to the subject of the request. Examining the order time together with the execution time, and fund unit movements together with bank cash movements, can provide a more detailed picture than a screenshot alone. [2] [7]

In an allegation of a crypto-asset transfer, the transaction ID, network, wallet address, time and service provider information should be specified. A transfer appearing to a wallet is not by itself proof that the wallet belongs to a particular person. Account ownership and transaction links are investigated through service provider records and other evidence. In transactions relating to accounts or institutions abroad, mutual legal assistance and the rules of the relevant country also become significant; it cannot be assumed that a decision issued in Türkiye will be enforced directly at every foreign institution. [7]

A request for evidence should be framed in a proportionate and targeted way. Investigating what became of a transfer made on a particular date is different from asking, without disclosing any connection, for the assets of all relatives of all employees to be examined. A personal connection, kinship or working in the same group may be a data point for the investigation; on its own, it is not proof of complicity or bad faith.

Under what conditions is seizure possible?

CMK Article 128 is not a general assurance of compensation

CMK Article 128 governs the seizure of immovable property, accounts, rights and receivables and other assets in respect of certain offenses. Strong suspicion, based on concrete evidence, that the offense was committed and that the relevant assets were obtained from the offense is required. The article also contains procedural conditions such as an institutional report and a judge’s decision. Possession by a person other than the suspect does not by itself prevent the measure with respect to a specifically identified asset; the legal position of the third party is examined separately. [7]

An important limit is the catalog of offenses. SPKn Articles 106 and 107 cannot be regarded as among the offenses listed in CMK Article 128(2) merely because they are capital market offenses. If an assessment is to be made with respect to catalog offenses such as fraud or breach of trust, or to special statutory bases, the facts supporting that characterization should be shown. With respect to laundering, Article 17 of Law No. 5549 is a special provision that refers to the procedure of CMK Article 128. An additional criminal charge without a factual basis cannot be constructed solely for the purpose of obtaining a measure. [7] [12]

Seizure is not a general precautionary attachment route that allows every asset of the suspect to be blocked for all compensation claims asserted by the investor. Whether a precautionary attachment or an interim injunction is required under private law is assessed separately according to the nature of the relevant claim and its own statutory conditions. The fact that these routes come into play together in the same case does not justify carrying the conditions of one over to the other.

Can CMK Article 128/A be applied to every fund dispute?

CMK Article 128/A, which entered into force on December 25, 2025, governs the short-term suspension of accounts at financial institutions, the seizure of the benefit that is the subject of the offense and the return procedure in certain theft offenses connected with information systems, aggravated fraud and bank or credit card offenses. It contains special provisions concerning banks, payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers. [7]

The fact that a fund purchase was made through internet banking does not by itself satisfy the conditions of this special procedure. The alleged conduct must constitute one of the offenses listed in the article and must be connected with the benefit in the relevant account. The expedited process provided for by the provision does not turn an ordinary loss of value or every delayed fund redemption into computer fraud.

The difference between a trustee and the liquidating bank

The appointment of a trustee for company management under CMK Article 133 is limited to the offenses and conditions set out in the law. Necessity is assessed with respect to the suspicion of an offense committed within the scope of the company’s activities and the uncovering of the material truth. The decision states whether the trustee has approval powers or whether management powers have been transferred. CMK Article 128(10), on the other hand, provides for trusteeship for the management of particular seized assets. [7]

The SPK’s assignment of a bank for fund liquidation and custody operations does not take the place of these judicial trustee decisions. As of October 18, 2026, the publicly available sources reviewed do not support the conclusion that a trustee was appointed under CMK Article 133 to all seven of the named portfolio management companies. Such a claim can be made only on the basis of a source showing the relevant company, the appointment decision, the date and the scope of authority.

By what route can seized property return to the investor?

There is a further legal stage between the preservation of assets and the satisfaction of the investor’s claim. The main mechanisms can be distinguished as follows:

With respect to CMK Article 131(2), the investor suffering an economic loss and the particular seized asset belonging to them are not the same thing. If the money was removed from the fund’s assets, the question of return and representation on behalf of the fund is examined. If a specific amount was taken by deception directly from the investor, different ownership and proof issues may arise. Where accounts are commingled and there are many rights holders, a single bank receipt (dekont) may not resolve all distribution issues. [2] [7]

TCK Article 55 takes into account the possibility of return to the victim in the confiscation of proceeds. The fact that the relevant pecuniary benefit cannot be returned to the victim is a condition for confiscation under this paragraph. Nevertheless, the determination of the proceeds of crime, the court’s ordering of confiscation and the collection of the investor’s private law claim are distinct procedures. TCK Articles 54-55 also protect the rights of third parties acting in good faith. [8]

Under CMK Article 132, seized items at risk of losing value or of being damaged may be disposed of before the judgment becomes final. However, an early sale does not automatically ensure that the sale proceeds are distributed immediately to all investors. Whether the decision is issued by the competent authority, the position of the rights holders and the legal regime under which the proceeds will be held are assessed separately. [7]

The recipient and the legal basis of an effective repentance payment

TCK Article 168 attaches criminal consequences to remedying the harm in the offenses it covers; it is not a common amnesty provision for every economic offense. In a partial return or compensation, the victim’s consent is of particular importance. SPKn Article 107(3), by contrast, is a separate provision that bases payment to the Treasury solely on the offense in Article 107(1). The scope and payment components of Article 110(3) are also different. [2] [8]

In a payment document offered to an investor, it should be made clear which loss the amount will be credited against, its relationship with liquidation payments and the remaining claims. Making a payment cannot by itself be interpreted as an admission of the offense. Withdrawal of a complaint, release, settlement and consent to partial payment are not the same legal act; conclusions should not be drawn by looking only at the title of the document.

How should the criminal investigation and the action for damages be pursued together?

Intervening in the criminal file does not by itself mean that a decision will be made in the same file on the collection of all investment losses. The investor should separately determine whether their claim is based on breach of contract, tort or special liability provisions, as well as the correct counterparty and the outcome to be sought. The distinction between recovering the fund’s assets and compensating the investor’s personal loss is maintained at this stage as well. [2] [7] [9]

TBK Article 74 governs the independence of the civil judge from the rules of criminal liability, from an acquittal and from the criminal judge’s assessment of fault and damage. It does not follow that the criminal file is unimportant. Transaction records, examinations and reports may be brought into the civil action and assessed. When the effect of the criminal decision is discussed, the determination of the material facts, the legal assessment of fault and the calculation of damage should not be treated under the same heading. [9]

HMK Article 165 provides for the possibility of a stay pending a preliminary question where a civil action depends on the outcome of another action or determination. Not every criminal investigation necessarily requires all civil actions to be stayed. It should be specified which fact is expected to be clarified in the criminal file and whether that fact can be established in the civil action through other evidence. [10]

Failing to monitor private law time limits on the assumption that a criminal investigation has been opened is risky. TBK Article 72 governs time limits for tort compensation linked to the date of knowledge and the date of the act and, where the conditions are met, the longer criminal statute of limitations. The time limits for contractual or special statutory claims may differ. It cannot be assumed that a criminal report automatically suspends or interrupts the statute of limitations for every type of claim. [9]

Liquidation payments, voluntary returns and amounts obtained through litigation should be tracked together in the current loss calculation. The same loss should not be claimed twice. Nevertheless, receiving a payment does not in every case mean that all losses have been remedied or that the remaining claims have been waived. The scope of the payment, any agreement and the heads of loss claimed are examined separately.

Limits of the measure, objections and a concrete application plan

Protecting investors’ rights also requires respect for the property and defense rights of suspects and third parties. The presumption of innocence prevents a criminal allegation from being presented as if it were a final judgment. The subject, scope and continuation of the measure should be based on concrete reasoning; a proportionate relationship should be established between the preservation of assets and the burden imposed on individuals for that purpose. This framework derives from Articles 13, 35, 36 and 38 of the Constitution and the relevant procedural provisions. [7] [8] [13]

A request to lift the measure, or an objection, is made to the authority appropriate to the type and stage of the decision. For example, CMK Article 131 provides for an objection against the rejection of a request for return. The application of the person harmed by the offense against a decision of non-prosecution, on the other hand, is governed by Article 173; under the current provision, the time limit is two weeks from notification. The right of application, the starting date and the competent authority should be checked decision by decision. The same time limit or the same court cannot be applied to every act. [7]

For the investor, a workable file consists of four parts: the fund’s current decisions and the unit ownership record; the personal transaction and payment chronology; concrete documents supporting the suspicion of an offense; and separate claims belonging to the criminal and private law routes. The evidence requested to be gathered in the criminal file and the heads of loss to be claimed in the civil action need to support each other. Territorial jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, any mediation as a condition precedent to litigation and time limits should be determined separately according to the nature of the parties and the claim to be asserted.

As of October 18, 2026, the sources reviewed in this article did not reveal any completed collection outcome confirming that assets subject to judicial measures, such as the jets and the yacht mentioned above, have been sold and their proceeds distributed to investors. This finding does not mean that no payment at all has been made under the fund liquidation. Showing that a payment has been made and showing that the payment was funded from assets recovered in the criminal investigation require different evidence.

Related articles: Seizure in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Limits, Objection and Routes to Return; The Problem of Characterizing Deceptive Conduct in the Offense of Fraud: The Intensity of Deceit and the Victim’s Ability to Verify; Interim Injunction and Precautionary Attachment: How to Protect Your Rights Without Waiting for the Outcome of the Case; Criminal Investigation and Recovery of Losses in Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation by the SPK; SPK Fund Liquidation: Investor Rights, Payment Process and Legal Routes of Recourse; Damages Actions for Investment Fund Losses: Liability of the Portfolio Management Company, the Custodian and the Bank.

Conclusion

A criminal investigation offers important possibilities for uncovering the transactions behind fund losses and for preserving assets connected with the offense. Whether these possibilities can produce a result in the investor’s favor depends on identifying the specific act, the correct person, the loss and the connection with the assets. A criminal report, seizure or trustee decision does not by itself constitute an assurance of full payment.

Effective legal work requires, together, monitoring the liquidation decision for the relevant fund, observing the SPK’s written application requirement, exercising rights in the investigation and assessing private law claims within the time limits. When a return to the fund’s assets and the investor’s personal compensation claim are properly separated, duplicate claims can be avoided and the actual residual loss can be determined more soundly. The value of the publicly announced interventions should be assessed not only by the size of the measures taken but by the legal route through which, and the documents on the basis of which, rights holders can obtain a result.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a decision to liquidate a fund show that fraud was committed?

No. Liquidation is a process that may be applied for administrative and financial reasons. For criminal liability, the act, intent and other elements of the alleged offense are investigated with respect to specific persons and transactions. An SPK decision may contain data in the nature of evidence; on its own, it is not a final finding of guilt. [1] [2] [8]

If I apply to the prosecutor’s office, is an application to the SPK no longer needed?

For offenses within the scope of SPKn Article 115, the Board’s written application to the prosecutor’s office is a separate prerequisite to the criminal proceedings. The investor’s complaint does not replace this requirement. For independent TCK offenses, on the other hand, their own investigation conditions apply; the specific act needs to be characterized correctly. [2] [7]

Can all fund unitholders automatically intervene in the criminal case?

No. After the public prosecution has been brought, the request to intervene and the connection as a person harmed by the offense are assessed. Merely being a unitholder does not prove a direct harm relationship for every charge. The personal transaction, the loss and the connection with the act need to be explained. [7]

Will a manager’s seized house or money be handed over directly to me?

Seizure does not transfer ownership to the investor. In a return under CMK Article 131(2), the victim’s ownership of the particular asset and the absence of any further need for it as evidence are examined. Collecting compensation from the suspect’s other assets requires, separately, an appropriate legal basis and procedure. [7]

If the judicial measure on a company or fund is lifted, will fund trading reopen?

Not automatically. A judicial measure and the SPK’s trading-closure or liquidation decision are different acts. Whether each of them remains in effect is checked on the basis of the decision of the relevant authority and the fund’s current announcements. [1] [3] [6]

Is the liquidating bank also the company’s trustee?

The assignment does not by itself show this. The fund liquidation and custody duty is separate from trusteeship of company management under CMK Article 133. In addition, the appointment of a trustee to manage particular assets under Article 128(10) is a different relationship of authority. [3] [7]

If an effective repentance payment is made to the Treasury, will my loss be covered?

A Treasury payment under SPKn Article 107(3) is not compensation paid to the investor. Remedying the harm to the victim under TCK Article 168 and the special payment arrangement in SPKn Article 110(3) are subject to different conditions. The recipient of the payment and which debt it covers should be determined. [2] [8]

Should I wait for the criminal investigation to end before filing a civil action?

It is not necessary to wait in every case. The statute of limitations and other procedural conditions are assessed separately. The civil court examines the question of a stay pending a preliminary question according to whether its own decision depends on the matter in the criminal file. The criminal file does not take the place of private law time limits. [9] [10]

Can I obtain the investigation documents or the expert report?

The rights of examination and of obtaining copies under CMK Article 234 and Article 153 may be exercised. However, the confidentiality of the investigation, any lawful restriction and the nature of the document are assessed. It is possible to make a reasoned request concerning particular documents through an attorney. [7]

If I receive a liquidation payment, do my other rights end?

Receiving the payment does not by itself show that all claims have been waived. The amount received is taken into account in the calculation relating to the same loss; the scope of any release, settlement or waiver document is examined separately. The legal basis and amount of the remaining loss should be established independently. [9]

Sources and legal bases

The last check date for all online sources is October 18, 2026. Legislative references relate to the texts of the relevant articles; information on events relates to the statements made on the dates indicated in the sources. Judicial decisions whose publicly available full text was not reviewed have not been used as case-law reasoning or as a final conviction.

1. Capital Markets Board (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu), Bulletin No. 2026/60; decision No. 57/1707 dated September 17, 2026. spk.gov.tr
2. 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 21, 52-54, 96, 106-107, 110 and 115. Official text accessed from the current legislation page of MKK, including the amendments made by Law No. 7518: mkk.com.tr — Source index: mkk.com.tr — UYAP legislation record of the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı): mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
3. Capital Markets Board, Bulletin No. 2026/61; decision No. 57/1708 dated September 17, 2026. spk.gov.tr
4. Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı), “Investigation into capital market transactions continues” (“Sermaye piyasasındaki işlemlere ilişkin soruşturma sürüyor”), October 4, 2026; statements of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor and chronology of the investigation. aa.com.tr
5. Anadolu Agency, “8 suspects placed in pretrial detention in capital market transactions investigations” (“Sermaye piyasası işlemleri soruşturmalarında 8 şüpheli tutuklandı”), September 24, 2026; information on the seizure of the private jets and the yacht. aa.com.tr
6. Anadolu Agency, “Asset measures on 45 companies and 19 funds lifted in capital market transactions investigations” (“Sermaye piyasası işlemleri soruşturmalarında 45 firma ve 19 fon üzerindeki mal varlığı tedbiri kaldırıldı”), September 28, 2026. aa.com.tr
7. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), adopted: December 4, 2004; Official Gazette: December 17, 2004, No. 25673. In particular Articles 128, 128/A, 131-133, 153, 158, 173, 234 and 237-238. Text of the Department of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Alternatif Çözümler Daire Başkanlığı) of the Ministry of Justice, including the amendments of December 25, 2025: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr
8. Law No. 5237, Turkish Criminal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), adopted: September 26, 2004; Official Gazette: October 12, 2004, No. 25611. In particular Articles 20-22, 54-55, 155, 157-158 and 168. Department of Alternative Dispute Resolution of the Ministry of Justice: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr
9. Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), adopted: January 11, 2011; Official Gazette: February 4, 2011, No. 27836. In particular Articles 49-52, 72 and 74. UYAP: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr — Article text of the Ministry of Justice: mgm.adalet.gov.tr
10. Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), adopted: January 12, 2011; Official Gazette: February 4, 2011, No. 27836; Article 165. UYAP: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr — Article text of the Ministry of Justice: mgm.adalet.gov.tr
11. Investor Compensation Center (Yatırımcı Tazmin Merkezi), “Article 97 — Measures to Be Applied in the Event of Deterioration of the Financial Position” (“Madde 97 — Mali Durumun Bozulması Hâlinde Uygulanacak Tedbirler”), official legislation page; no separate publication date is indicated. ytm.gov.tr
12. 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: October 11, 2006, Official Gazette: October 18, 2006, No. 26323; in particular Article 17. masak.hmb.gov.tr
13. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13, 35, 36 and 38; legislation page of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi). Official Gazette: November 9, 1982, No. 17863, duplicate issue (mükerrer). anayasa.gov.tr
14. Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi), “Bill on Certain Investment Funds Whose Liquidation Has Been Ordered” (“Tasfiyesine Karar Verilen Bazı Yatırım Fonları Hakkında Kanun Teklifi”), docket No. 2/3939; received by the Speaker’s Office: October 9, 2026; status check: October 18, 2026. tbmm.gov.tr
15. Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, “Bill Containing Provisions on Certain Investment Funds Whose Liquidation Has Been Ordered Adopted in Committee” (“Tasfiyesine Karar Verilen Bazı Yatırım Fonlarına İlişkin Düzenlemeleri İçeren Kanun Teklifi Komisyonda Kabul Edildi”), October 14, 2026, at 22:46. tbmm.gov.tr