How Did the September 2026 Fund Crisis Emerge? Decisions and Legal Chronology
Market risks known before the crisis
According to the SPK statement of September 18, 2026, in the last quarter of 2025, price movements that were difficult to explain by economic fundamentals were observed in shares with a low actual free float, particularly through hedge funds and money market funds; the matter was taken up at the Financial Stability Committee on December 2, 2025. This statement shows that the risk did not first emerge only on September 17. Nevertheless, the fact that the SPK had information about the risk does not lead to the conclusion that every fund or every institution knew of the same risk.
The decisions of September 17, September 21, October 1 and October 27
On September 17, the SPK decided to close transactions on TEFAS and other channels and to liquidate the funds of certain portfolio management companies. By the announcement of September 21, a certain three-month period in the earlier arrangement was extended to six months. On October 1, interim payment and optional refund accounts were announced, and on October 27, Law No. 7596 and implementing decision No. 76/1903 entered into force. The date and scope of each event must be kept separate.
Current status: The SPK statement of November 6, 2026
On November 6, the SPK explained that funds closed to transactions would not be deemed to have reopened automatically, and set out conditions for certain funds to be reopened for transactions, such as the founding company applying to the bank charged with the liquidation and the application being forwarded to the SPK. For this reason, a fund closed to transactions, a fund ordered into liquidation and a fund within the scope of Law No. 7596 must not be used as the same set.
131 Funds and 455,758 Investors: What Legal Consequence Do the Figures Show?
The scope of the statistic
The figures of 131 funds and 455,758 unique investors in the SPK announcement of September 23 relate to the funds of the seven portfolio management companies whose liquidation was ordered by the decisions of September 17. These data do not show that 455,758 persons suffered the same damage or that each of them will receive the same payment under Law No. 7596.
Fund-by-fund and person-by-person examination
Each fund’s assets, number of investors, portfolio composition, buy and sell instructions, liquidation stage and distributable cash may differ. The same investor may have invested in more than one fund. For this reason, the statistic may be aggregated; however, the calculation of claims and damage must be made on a fund-by-fund and account-by-account basis.
The BDDK’s Regulatory, Oversight and Supervisory Obligations
Articles 43, 93 and 95 of Law No. 5411
The BDDK’s duty is not limited to regulating the banking sector. Monitoring banks’ financial structure, concentration and risk positions, internal control, risk management and internal audit systems, and intervening within statutory limits, are part of this duty. Article 43 of Law No. 5411 must be assessed with regard to risks and standards, Article 93 with regard to regulatory and supervisory duties, and Article 95 with regard to on-site inspection and obtaining information.
The supervisory duty is not a guarantee of assuming all losses
The fact that the BDDK supervises a particular bank does not mean that it guarantees the investment result of every investment fund with which that bank is connected. In assessing liability, it must be made concrete which risk arose in which banking activity, what the Agency knew on which date or could have learned through the required supervision, and which power it failed to exercise.
The SPK–BDDK Division of Powers and the Duties of More Than One Regulator in the Same Event
The SPK’s core area
Portfolio management companies, the establishment of funds, management principles, the capital markets dimension of portfolio custody activity, investment services, market fraud and fund liquidation fall essentially within the special area of duty of the SPK. Law No. 6362 and secondary legislation apply.
The BDDK’s independent oversight of the bank
A bank’s assumption of a custodian or distributor role does not remove the banking oversight duty; however, it does not give the BDDK all of the SPK’s portfolio oversight powers either. In the specific transaction, the complementary duties of the two institutions, which have separate legal bases, must be identified. Where a breach of other legislation is learned of during the relevant supervision, an obligation to notify the competent authority may also be discussed.
Law No. 7596: Scope, Retroactive Effect and Limits
It is not a general liquidation law for every fund
Law No. 7596 on Certain Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation, adopted on October 22, 2026 and published on October 27, 2026, covers funds whose liquidation was ordered by the SPK decisions of September 17, 2026 and whose liquidation had not been completed on the date of the Law’s publication. No permanent and general liquidation regime has been established for other funds.
Entry into force and retroactive effect
Article 8 of the Law provides that its provisions enter into force on the date of publication, to apply with effect from September 17, 2026. The scope of this provision, its effect on completed transactions and the principle of legal certainty must be examined carefully in the specific dispute.
The funds in the October 27 implementing decision
In SPK Decision No. 76/1903, the funds founded by Tera, Pusula and Atlas Portföy were specified with regard to the new payment process being conducted; Ziraat Bankası was appointed for Pusula and Atlas, and İş Bankası for Tera. This statement must not be read as meaning that all of the transaction closure and liquidation decisions of September 17 moved to the same payment stage on the same day.
The position of investors whose TEFAS sell instructions were not executed and whose units were blocked
Article 3(5) of Law No. 7596 provides that fund unit ownership is determined on the basis of the MKK records and the reconciliation to be carried out by the institution acting as liquidator on a fund and account basis. Persons whose fund units were blocked in respect of instructions transmitted to TEFAS on or before September 17, 2026 but not executed because of the fund’s default or because the unit price was not announced are also treated as fund unitholders within the scope of the Law. For the application of this special rule, the mere fact that a sell order was given must be distinguished from the existence of units that were not executed for the reasons listed in the law and whose blockage continues.
For this reason, the order time stamp, the relevant fund code, the order type, the value date information, the MKK unit balance, the blockage records and the TEFAS transaction result of an investor whose sell order was not filled must be examined together. A general “cancelled” notation on the screen of the bank or distributor does not, on its own, prove or eliminate all of the conditions required by the Law. If the investor claims that there is a deficiency in the account reconciliation, they should first request the bases of the relevant records and calculation; the authority to which the claim is to be addressed and the legal route should be assessed according to the nature of the act.
Recovery of Fund Assets: TMSF, YTM and Special Accounts
The legal nature of the recovery account
Law No. 7596 provides for recovery accounts in which fund assets that were unlawfully removed or recovered are tracked with the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), separately from the TMSF’s own assets and on a fund-by-fund basis. These accounts cannot be used for any other purpose; the law contains special restrictions on attachment and collateral.
Distribution before and after the fund is wound up
Adding recovered assets to the fund’s assets while the liquidation is ongoing and, after the liquidation has been completed, making payments to the entitled persons through the TMSF and the Investor Compensation Center (YTM) are subject to different procedures. Earlier collections must be offset when payments are made.
The relationship between confiscation and criminal seizure and the special fund regime
Article 6 of Law No. 7596 regulates the relationship between seizures under Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) in certain criminal investigations and the regime for returning assets to the funds and recovery. Not every seizure automatically means final confiscation or a definitive determination of entitlement.
Fair valuation, off-exchange sales and the liquidator’s duty of care
Article 3(2) of Law No. 7596 aims at obtaining the highest possible economic value, having regard to the protection of fund assets and the common interest of fund unitholders. Where the SPK determines that the price formed on the exchange does not reflect the true value or delays the liquidation, it may provide for methods such as buybacks, the right to sell to the controlling shareholder, block sales, special transaction notifications, different price margins and, under certain conditions, off-exchange sales. These options are not an arbitrary valuation power but a liquidation tool limited by the statutory purpose and the specific conditions.
In a liability claim, not only the fact that the sale took place must be examined, but also the pre-sale valuation, liquidity and trading depth, alternative sale methods, possible conflicts of interest, the calculation of mandatory expenses and the market data for the same period. A claim that a sale could have been made at a higher price must be based on specific evidence beyond a comparison of historical market prices. The periods of duty and legal capacities of the bank conducting the liquidation and of the pre-crisis portfolio custodian must also not be confused.
Interim Payment, Final Payment and Net Investment Amount for the Investor
Net investment amount and indexation
Under Article 4(1) of Law No. 7596, the net investment amount is calculated by the MKK, under certain conditions, using cash inflows/outflows, the arithmetic average of the rates of change of the consumer price index (TÜFE) and the domestic producer price index (Yİ-ÜFE), the pro rata temporis method and the first-in, first-out method. This calculation is not synonymous with the current balance in the investor’s bank account.
The one million TL ceiling is not a guarantee
Article 4(2) of the Law, concerning the interim payment, makes possible an interim payment that does not exceed the non-indexed net investment amount and the limit of 1 million TL per fund. One million TL is not public compensation or a deposit guarantee that will definitely be paid to everyone. Sufficient distributable cash, the nature of the fund, the SPK payment order and the other ceilings are decisive.
The priority of money market funds and the final payment
SPK Decision No. 76/1903 gives priority to money market funds. Interim payments do not terminate fund units; the redemption of fund units takes place in the final liquidation. Earlier interim payments are offset against the final calculation. If a fund’s distributable cash is fully sufficient, a direct final payment may also come into question.
A decision to exclude from payment and disputes over entitlement
Article 3(6) of Law No. 7596 and the SPK implementing principles of October 27, 2026 provide that no payment is to be made from the liquidation and recovery accounts to persons and institutions that the SPK has determined to have committed the acts set out in Articles 104, 106 or 107 of Law No. 6362 in connection with the relevant funds, or to have acted together with such persons, and that have been notified through the MKK. This exception does not mean that all suspects, every related person, or those who are merely investors in the same fund automatically lose their right to payment. The statutory connection, the person-by-person determination, the scope of the notification and the basis of the act are important.
In disputes concerning non-payment, account reconciliation or the entitlement record, the reasoning, the notification, the relevant records, the nature of the decision, and the application and litigation periods must each be examined separately. The court competent for the judicial review of the SPK determination and of the payment act is determined according to the legal nature of the dispute; no single authority and period should be assumed for every investor dispute.
Did the BDDK’s Credit Risk Limit Decision No. 11539 Cause the Crisis?
The express subject of the decision and the ratios
Decision No. 11539 of July 30, 2026 limited, in certain development and investment banks other than Takasbank and İller Bankası, the credit risk amount relating to a person or risk group to 30% of Tier 1 capital, and to 25% for the risk group to which the bank belongs. It was provided that excesses relating to the bank’s own risk group were to be eliminated by October 1, 2026, and other excesses by April 1, 2027.
A wrong inference: Permission to invest in the shareholders’ personal funds
This decision is not a decision granting general permission for the money of savings finance customers to be transferred to the private investment funds of the bank’s shareholders. Credit risk concentration and the act of purchasing a fund are not the same legal concept.
Possible indirect economic effect
A bank’s reduction of a concentrated credit position may lead to changes in financing and liquidity in the borrower group. Whether this had an effect on a particular fund, however, must be shown through the credit files, borrower connections, and payment and sale dates. The proximity of the decisions on the calendar is not proof of causation.
The BDDK’s Savings Finance Decision No. 11537
The instruments in which the fund pool may be invested
Decision No. 11537 of July 30, 2026 regulates the participation-based instruments in which savings finance companies’ fund pools and company resources may be invested, together with concentration limits and limits on high-value contracts. The current full text of the official decision and its implementation date must be taken as the basis.
Distinguishing a regulatory limit from a specific breach
For a claim that an ineligible asset was held in the fund pool, the transaction date, the restriction in force on that date, the risk class of the asset and the company’s actual portfolio records must be examined together. Restrictions in the decision that entered into force later cannot be applied to a past period as an automatic criterion of breach.
The Operating Licence of İktisat Katılım Bankası and the Start of Supervision
Operating licence No. 11424
By the BDDK’s Decision No. 11424 of February 26, 2026, İktisat Katılım Bankası AŞ was granted an operating licence. The lawfulness of the operating licence is assessed on the basis of the conditions of Article 10 of Law No. 5411 in force on the date of the licence and the documents in the Agency’s file.
An operating licence is not approval of all of the funds’ transactions
The granting of a licence to a bank does not mean that every transaction it later carries out, or the investment decisions of other connected entities, were separately approved by the BDDK. A genuine transactional connection between the bank and the relevant funds and savings finance institutions must be proved. Moreover, it must not be assumed in advance whether decision No. 11539 on development/investment banks applies directly to this bank by virtue of its legal status.
Protection of the Savings Finance Customer’s Resources
Article 39/B of Law No. 6361
Keeping the savings fund pool separate from the company’s other accounts and not using it except for obligations arising from savings finance contracts is a special principle of protection. The existence of a permitted investment instrument does not legitimize use of the pool for purposes other than its intended purpose.
The fund investor and the savings finance customer are distinct
The rights of the direct holder of a fund unit and the contractual rights of the savings finance customer against the company must not be confused. If the company invested in a fund, it cannot be said that the customer automatically became a unitholder of that fund.
Related-Party Transactions, Valuation and Conflict of Interest
Transactions that are formally valid but whose economic purpose is disputed
Article 5 of Law No. 7596 makes the subject of assessment not only transactions that are clearly contrary to the legislation, but also certain value transfers that appear formally compliant with the legislation but have no genuine economic purpose in the interest of the fund. In loans, advances, collateral, purchases and sales, repos and similar transactions, the counterparty, price, liquidity and economic rationale must be examined.
An evidence plan for a breach of obligations
Controlling shareholder and manager connections, the ultimate beneficial owner, purchase and sale dates, market depth, valuation reports, the fund rules and the investment strategy are considered together. A related-party transaction does not automatically give rise to criminal or compensation liability merely because a connection exists.
The Legal Liability of the Portfolio Custodian Bank
Duties under Article 56 of Law No. 6362
The duties of the portfolio custodian are not limited to physical safekeeping. They include obligations such as fund unit transactions, the calculation of the fund’s unit value, and the conformity of portfolio transactions and instructions with the law and the relevant fund documents.
The link between damage and breach of duty
The custodian bank is not the insurer of every market loss. On the other hand, liability may arise where the fund unitholder suffers specific damage because of a breach of the custody and control obligation. The period during which it acted must not be confused with the period of the bank later appointed solely for the liquidation.
The Distributor Bank’s Information and Suitability Liability
The type of investment service
The distributor bank may be an institution that only transmits orders, or it may engage in additional activities such as investment advice, marketing and providing information. Which duties and liabilities arise depends on the actual service provided.
Misleading product presentation
Where the fund was presented as a deposit or a product with a guaranteed return, the investor’s risk profile, the explanations given, the risk disclosures, telephone recordings and advertising documents must be examined. The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), E.2016/1317, K.2016/9787, is an example of inadequate information and the investor’s own contribution being assessed together.
The Legal Position of Takasbank, TEFAS and the MKK
Different functions
Takasbank may be subject to different legislation with regard to its banking and clearing infrastructure activities. TEFAS is a trading platform; the MKK keeps decisive records for book-entry ownership and reconciliation. These roles do not mean that an institution guarantees every investment decision or the financial result of every fund.
The legal effect of cancelled instructions
The SPK statement of September 28 draws special distinctions between the TEFAS instructions of September 17 that were cancelled and instructions given earlier but not executed because of default or because the price was not announced. The MKK reconciliation and Article 3(5) of Law No. 7596 are important as regards the entitlement status into which these transactions will be converted.
Service Fault Arising from the BDDK’s Supervisory Negligence
The moment when the specific risk was known or could have been known
In examining the service fault of the administration, supervisory reports, complaints, warnings from other institutions, risk concentration and the transaction dates of the relevant units are important. All past supervisory decisions cannot automatically be regarded as faulty on the basis of damage that became known later.
The duty to intervene and discretionary power
The BDDK’s statutory options for intervention, the nature of the risk and the proportionate measures that could have been taken are identified. The fact that the administration has discretionary power does not mean absolute non-liability; however, not every different regulatory choice is a service fault either.
Joint Liability of the BDDK and SPK: Reading the Council of State Decisions Correctly
13th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay), E.2005/2625, K.2005/5753
In a dispute concerning government domestic debt securities (DİBS) transactions carried out through İmar Bankası, the Chamber assessed supervisory fault on the part of the BDDK and the SPK and reached a finding of compensation. This decision is important in that it shows that two regulatory institutions can be examined together with regard to their different duties.
The subsequent reversal must always be mentioned
However, the Chamber decision in question was reversed by the decision of the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State dated May 4, 2006. The reasoning for the reversal was that claims based on different factual and legal grounds had been asserted in a single petition and that the statement of claim therefore had to be separated. For this reason, it is not correct to present the earlier Chamber decision as final or, on its own, as an established decision on liability to compensate.
The consequence for the 2026 crisis
For joint liability of the BDDK and the SPK, a separate breach of duty, damage and causal link must be shown for each institution. The fact that one administration has duties in the same event as another institution does not automatically give rise to joint and several liability.
Liability of the Portfolio Management Company, Managers and Controlling Shareholders
The special liability regime of Article 5 of Law No. 7596
The Law holds primarily liable for the loss and damage arising from the unlawful removal of value from the fund’s assets the portfolio management company that is the founder and/or manager of the fund. With regard to amounts that cannot be collected, or that clearly will not be collectible, recourse may additionally be had against the natural and legal persons whose liability has been determined by the SPK.
Does leaving office remove liability?
The Law provides that the fact that a person who held office during the period in which the transaction giving rise to liability was carried out later leaves office does not automatically remove their liability arising from the transaction of that period. Nevertheless, the transaction, the duty, the fault and the legal link must be established separately for each person.
Personal liability under the special law, enforcement under Law No. 6183 and the İstanbul administrative courts
Article 5 of Law No. 7596 provides for the liability, first, of the founding and/or managing portfolio management company for value removed from the fund’s assets through transactions that are unlawful or, even if formally compliant, have no genuine economic purpose for the benefit of the fund. Where collection from the company is wholly or partly impossible or it is clearly understood that it will not be possible, personal liability comes into play with regard to the natural and legal persons whose liability has been determined by the SPK and those acting together with them. Liability must be determined on a transaction-by-transaction and person-by-person basis; no automatic conclusion should be drawn merely from the title of shareholder or manager.
For the collection of amounts notified by the SPK to the TMSF, Article 5(4) of the Law refers to Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables and to certain provisions of Law No. 5411. The İstanbul administrative courts have been specially designated as competent for actions within the scope of the same paragraph. This special jurisdiction does not mean that a contractual compensation action to be brought by the investor against the distributor bank, or every action to be brought against another administrative act, will automatically be heard by an İstanbul administrative court. The type of act, the capacity of the parties, special territorial jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction must be assessed separately.
How Is the Investor’s Damage Calculated? The Difference Between a Liquidation Claim and Compensation
Three different calculations
The first calculation is the liquidation claim under Law No. 7596 and the SPK implementing decision. The second calculation is the right to subsequent payment that may arise from the recovery of fund assets. The third calculation is the extent of the legal compensatory damage alleged to arise from a specific breach of service or contract. These may not be exactly the same amounts.
Example calculation — hypothetical
Let us assume that an investor’s net investment in the fund, without indexation, is 1,400,000 TL. Because of the one million TL interim payment ceiling, the fund’s distributable cash and other statutory limits, this does not mean that this person will definitely receive 1,000,000 TL. For example, if an interim payment of 500,000 TL and then a final payment of 300,000 TL were actually made, these 800,000 TL are offset in the subsequent legal damage/liquidation calculation. The remaining damage cannot simply be accepted as final and definitive at 600,000 TL; indexation, unit value, other collections, the basis of liability and direct damage are calculated separately.
Which Actions Can Be Brought? Determining the Defendant and the Type of Claim
Administrative and civil judicial routes must not be confused
Claims asserted because of an administrative act or administrative action of a public institution and bank/portfolio management disputes arising from a private-law contract may be subject to different judicial routes. The special collection mechanism of Law No. 7596 for the recovery of fund assets is also a separate process.
The claim and the capacity of the parties
The fund unitholder’s liquidation payment, the liability of the portfolio custodian, the distributor bank’s information fault and the BDDK’s service fault are claims distinct from one another. In each of them, the defendant, the conditions for bringing the action, the subject of proof, jurisdiction and the time limit must be determined anew.
İYUK Articles 12–13, Application Periods and the Full Remedy Action
A claim arising from an administrative act
Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) regulates the relationship between annulment and full remedy actions to be brought on the ground of a violation of rights caused by administrative acts. The starting date, the act, notification, learning of the act and the conditions for challenging a regulatory act require special examination.
A claim arising from administrative action or omission
Article 13 of the İYUK regulates a preliminary application to the administration where damage is alleged because of administrative actions. Provisions such as the relevant one-year period from learning and the five-year outer limit must be assessed carefully according to the date on which the action and the damage were learned of. These periods cannot be applied mechanically to every type of action.
Has the damage become definite while the liquidation is ongoing?
Where liquidation and recovery payments are ongoing, the amount of the damage may change. For this reason, the occurrence of the damage, the learning of it and its determinability must be analysed separately with regard to the litigation periods and the relief sought. Waiting for the end of the liquidation is not a safe general rule in every case.
The prohibition of attachment on the special recovery account and the limit of a compensation action
Article 6(4)–(7) of Law No. 7596 provides that recovered assets are tracked in sub-accounts for each fund, separately from the TMSF’s own assets, and used solely for the liquidation of the relevant fund and for payments to the entitled persons. These accounts cannot be pledged as collateral; they cannot be attached even for public receivables, and no interim injunction or precautionary attachment can be imposed on them. Consequently, the fact that an investor has a claim or a compensation claim does not mean that there is a direct attachment route for individual and priority collection from this protected account.
The distribution, through the YTM, of amounts collected after the liquidation has been completed to the entitled persons differs from their transfer to the fund’s assets while the liquidation is ongoing. The special distribution order of the Law and the conditions of an independent compensation claim must be distinguished, and double recovery must be prevented by offsetting payments obtained through other legal routes. The obligation to provide information and documents under Article 3(4) of the Law concerns requests by the competent institutions; it does not give the investor an unlimited right to request all internal documents of institutions directly.
Criminal and Personal Liability Arising from Financial Supervision
The distinction between administrative service fault and crime
The existence of a supervisory deficiency in an act of the BDDK or the SPK does not mean that everyone on duty automatically committed a crime. In criminal law, the perpetrator’s act, the statutory definition of the offence, fault and the special conditions for investigation are examined separately.
Article 104 of the Banking Law
Article 104 of Law No. 5411 contains certain investigation and liability procedures with regard to Board members and staff. The compensation liability of the administrative institution and the personal criminal or recourse liability of the official must be assessed separately.
Capital markets offences
The acts in Articles 104, 106 and 107 of Law No. 6362 are connected with the recovery and exclusion-from-payment provisions under Law No. 7596. It cannot be assumed in advance, without proof of a specific act with regard to a person or institution, that a crime was committed or that all investors have legally acquired the status of victim.
Verified Court Decisions and Their Value as Precedent
11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, December 22, 2016, E.2016/1317, K.2016/9787
In the decision, the first-instance assessment concerning the bank’s failure to provide adequate information about the fund’s risks and the investor’s own lack of research was weighed, and the appeals were dismissed. This decision does not say that the bank is liable for every fund loss; it shows the importance of the specific service, the information provided and the conduct of the parties.
13th Chamber of the Council of State, December 2, 2005, E.2005/2625, K.2005/5753 and the subsequent reversal
Although the Chamber decision’s assessment of BDDK–SPK supervisory fault concerning İmar Bankası DİBS transactions is important, the reversal of May 4, 2006 must always be explained alongside it. The decision must not be used as a final precedent while the existence of the reversal is concealed.
Earlier supervisory decisions
Decisions concerning banking supervision in the period before the BDDK was established must not be presented as disputes to which today’s Agency is a direct party. No definitive case law should be added without separately verifying the date of the event, the administration on duty, the calculation of damage and the outcome of the appeal.
A Legal Roadmap to Prevent Loss of Rights in the 2026 Fund Crisis
The legal status must be determined first
It is determined of which fund the investor is a unitholder; whether the fund was closed to transactions on September 17; the liquidation and the scope of Law No. 7596; whether it was taken into the payment process by the October 27 implementing decision; and its status in the MKK reconciliation.
Minimum document and transaction check
- Fund code, number of fund units and acquisition dates.
- MKK and brokerage account statements, and the dates and times of orders.
- Fund rules, investment strategy, risk and information documents.
- SPK decisions published on a fund-by-fund basis and the appointed liquidating institution.
- Interim payment, final payment and recovery records.
- Guidance and statements given by the bank or the portfolio management company.
- The damage allegedly suffered, collections through other routes and the calculation of time limits.
Liability and litigation matrix
| Possible counterparty | Duty to be examined | Example evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Portfolio management company | Management of the fund and protection of assets | Portfolio transaction records, management decisions |
| Portfolio custodian | Custody, compliance and control duties | Reconciliation and compliance reports |
| Distributor bank | Information, order execution, suitability | Voice recording, contract, order records |
| SPK | Capital markets regulation and oversight | Dates of warnings, examinations and decisions |
| BDDK | Banking oversight and supervision | Supervisory finding, reports and notifications |
| TMSF/YTM and appointed bank | Special liquidation and payment regime | Payment accounts and reconciliation |
The basic principle of the legal strategy: Different legal routes may be explored for the same damage; however, double recovery of the same damage is not possible. A uniform action proposal for all funds and all institutions is not correct.
Conclusion
The 2026 investment fund crisis is not merely a fluctuation in the financial markets; it is an area of dispute that makes visible the boundaries between fund management, investor records, recovery, public oversight and private-law liability. While Law No. 7596 introduced special payment and liability provisions for certain funds whose liquidation had not been completed, it did not merge the duties of the BDDK and the SPK.
With regard to the BDDK’s liability, the decisive criterion is not that a licence was granted to a particular bank or that credit limit decision No. 11539 was adopted close to the crisis; it is when the specific risk falling within the Agency’s area of competence was known or could have been known, which measure should have been taken, and whether the alleged damage is causally connected to that conduct. The same method must be adapted to the SPK and to custodian and distributor banks according to their own special duties.
The protection of investors begins with the correct application of the entitlement and payment rules in the new law; but where there are allegations of supervisory and management breaches, the damage and liability must be examined separately and on the basis of evidence. Administrative litigation periods, private-law claims and recovery payments must be monitored together; possible application periods must not be overlooked because of the expectation of a final payment.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many investors were affected by the 2026 fund crisis?
On September 23, 2026, the SPK announced that there were 455,758 unique investors in 131 funds. This figure does not mean that everyone suffered the same damage or has the same right to payment.
Does Law No. 7596 cover all investment funds?
No. It is a special regime for funds whose liquidation was ordered on September 17 and whose liquidation had not been completed on October 27, 2026.
Will one million TL be paid to every fund unitholder?
No. One million TL is the interim payment ceiling under certain conditions; payment depends on the fund’s cash position and its other limits.
Does my fund unit end when I receive an interim payment?
No. Under Law No. 7596 and the SPK implementing principles, fund units are redeemed at the final liquidation stage.
How is the net investment amount calculated?
It is calculated by the MKK on a fund-by-fund basis in accordance with the cash inflow/outflow, indexation and offsetting rules in Article 4 of the Law.
Are the fund price and the net investment amount the same?
No. The daily unit value, the indexed net investment and the interim payment calculation are different legal/economic concepts.
Does the BDDK pay fund losses directly?
No. Liability to compensate that may arise from the BDDK’s oversight duty can be assessed only if the specific legal conditions are met.
Is the SPK liable for the entire loss of the fund?
No. The supervisory duty alone does not constitute a guarantee against market losses; a breach, damage and a causal link are required.
Did BDDK decision No. 11539 grant permission to invest in funds?
No. It concerns the person/risk group credit limits of certain development and investment banks.
What did decision No. 11537 regulate?
It introduced rules on the instruments in which savings finance companies’ fund pools may be invested and on certain risk/contract limits.
Did the licence of İktisat Katılım Bankası cause the fund crisis?
Causation cannot be established between the operating licence alone and the crisis; the specific transactional connections between the bank and the funds must be investigated.
Is a savings finance customer directly a fund investor?
No. The customer’s contractual right against the company and ownership of fund units are different statuses.
Can the custodian bank be held liable?
If a specific breach of the custody and control obligation caused damage, it may be liable subject to the conditions; it is not automatically liable for every market loss.
Is a bank that sells funds deemed to have given a deposit guarantee?
No. A fund unit is not a deposit. Misleading information may give rise to separate liability on the basis of the specific records.
Does the TMSF insure all fund losses?
No. The TMSF recovery account under Law No. 7596 is not general deposit insurance or an unlimited state guarantee.
Can an action be brought before the liquidation of the fund is completed?
Depending on the type of action, it may be possible; the determinability of the damage, the conditions for bringing the action and the time limits must be assessed separately.
Is the preliminary application under İYUK Article 13 mandatory?
It applies, where its conditions are met, to full remedy claims arising from administrative action and omission. It must not be confused with İYUK Article 12, which concerns administrative acts.
Can the BDDK and SPK be held jointly liable?
This may be discussed if a separate breach of duty by each institution and a causal link with the damage are established; the mere fact that they both dealt with the same crisis is not sufficient.
Is Council of State decision 2005/2625 a definitive precedent?
No. The Chamber decision was reversed on May 4, 2006; it must be assessed together with this procedural history.
Is a related-party transaction in funds always unlawful?
No. The economic purpose of the transaction, its price, the counterparty connection and the interest of the fund must be assessed.
How is a TEFAS order given on September 17 but cancelled assessed?
The SPK statement of September 28 and the special entitlement regime in Article 3 of Law No. 7596 are taken into account; the order date, the price value date and the blockage status are examined.
Can a person who has received a payment also have a compensation claim?
They may, if the conditions are met; however, payments received are offset against the relevant damage calculation, and the same damage cannot be recovered twice.
How are assets removed from the assets of a fund within the scope of Law No. 7596 recovered?
Under Articles 5–6 of the Law, the SPK determination, TMSF enforcement, the recovery account and, where necessary, seizure/confiscation methods in a criminal investigation may operate together.
Has a fund closed to transactions necessarily entered liquidation?
No. Closure to transactions, the liquidation list and the scope of Law No. 7596 must be checked separately; the SPK statement of November 6 emphasizes this distinction.
Which documents should be kept at the initial stage?
The fund code and number of units, the time stamps of orders, account statements, information documents, payment and refund records, the relevant SPK announcements and, if any, the bank’s statements should be preserved.
If my TEFAS sell order was not executed, can I be an entitled person under Law No. 7596?
If an instruction transmitted to TEFAS on or before September 17, 2026 was not executed because of the fund’s default or because the unit price was not announced, and the units were blocked, the special entitlement protection in Article 3(5) of the Law may apply. The order, blockage and MKK records must be compared.
What can I do if I am excluded from the interim payment because of an SPK determination?
First, the scope and basis of the person-specific SPK determination, the MKK notification and the reasoning of the act refusing payment must be examined. The relevant application authority and periods are determined according to the legal nature of the act; no general conclusion of automatic refusal or automatic payment can be drawn.
Can I have an attachment imposed on the recovery account?
Article 6(5) of Law No. 7596 prohibits attachment, precautionary attachment and interim injunctions on the fund-based recovery account held with the TMSF. Payment to the entitled person is subject to a special distribution procedure; other legal claims must be assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 7596 on Certain Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation, Official Gazette 27.10.2026, No. 33413, Articles 1–9. resmigazete.gov.tr
- SPK, 23.09.2026 announcement on the number of investors: spk.gov.tr
- SPK, 18.09.2026 statement on the guidance regulation process: spk.gov.tr
- SPK, 21.09.2026 statement on the liquidation period: spk.gov.tr
- SPK, 28.09.2026 statement on instructions and the fund liquidation period: spk.gov.tr
- SPK, 01.10.2026 interim payment announcement: spk.gov.tr
- SPK, statement on Decision No. 76/1903 dated 27.10.2026: spk.gov.tr
- SPK, 06.11.2026 statement on reopening for transactions: spk.gov.tr
- BDDK, Decisions No. 11537 and No. 11539 dated 30.07.2026 (official decision inventory): bddk.gov.tr
- BDDK, operating licence No. 11424 of İktisat Katılım Bankası dated 26.02.2026: bddk.gov.tr
- 13th Chamber of the Council of State, E.2005/2625, K.2005/5753, 02.12.2005, text of the decision: karararama.danistay.gov.tr
- Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State, 04.05.2006 reversal, Council of State Journal (Danıştay Dergisi): danistay.gov.tr
- 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 22.12.2016, E.2016/1317, K.2016/9787, hedge fund sales and information liability (accessible anonymized text) librumhukuk.com
- Banking Law No. 5411, Capital Markets Law No. 6362, Law No. 6361 and Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK). mevzuat.gov.tr