Criminal Investigation and Recovery of Losses in Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation by the SPK

A decision by the Capital Markets Board (SPK) to liquidate an investment fund does not show that the investor’s entire loss stems from a crime, or that it will be compensated automatically through a criminal investigation. The investigation may help identify the transactions and the persons responsible, preserve assets connected with the crime and, where the conditions are met, secure their return; the liquidation balance, the fund’s own recovery claim and the investor’s personal compensation claim, however, are assessed separately. Liquidation records, criminal-law applications and private-law remedies should therefore be followed together, with due regard to the time limits applicable to each. The SPK decisions announced as of October 18, 2026 and the special bill before the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) are also important for payment expectations; the provisions of the bill cannot be applied as if they were legislation in force.

How do the liquidation decisions of September 17, 2026 and the subsequent amendments affect investors?

In its decisions of September 17, 2026, the SPK regulated together the trading restrictions on funds founded by seven portfolio management companies and the liquidation of certain funds. It cannot be said, however, that liquidation was ordered for all of the funds closed to trading. Bulletin No. 2026/60 distinguished between the restriction imposed on funds founded by Tera, Pusula, Hedef, Atlas, A1 Capital, Pardus and Bulls and traded on TEFAS, and the liquidation of the funds listed separately. [1]

The decisions have developed as follows with regard to investors’ payment expectations and the preparation of applications:

The scope check should therefore not be based solely on the name of the portfolio management company. The updated list in Section C of Bulletin No. 2026/61 should be compared with the full title and code of the investor’s fund, and the relevant KAP announcements and subsequent SPK decisions should be assessed together. As of October 18, 2026, still presenting the Hedef funds as part of the four-company interim payment group of September 30 is inconsistent with the current decision. [2] [5]

The liquidation principles provide that assets converted into cash are to be distributed in proportion to the reconciled unitholdings. In addition, there is a special provision under which amounts arising in respect of certain redemption instructions that were not executed are recorded as a fund liability and paid with priority. It should therefore be investigated whether the investor remains on record as a unitholder or whether there is a redemption transaction awaiting payment. The date, time, value date and execution status of the order may affect the content of the application. [2]

The six-month period does not mean that the entire invested principal will be paid on a specific date. The outcome of the liquidation is affected by the real value of the portfolio, the possibility of converting it into cash, liabilities and expenses; it is also possible for the SPK to extend the period. The interim payment, for its part, is linked to the final account. Receiving an interim payment therefore does not show that the remaining loss has become final or that claims that may be asserted separately have automatically ended. [3] [4]

Why should the liquidation claim, the fund’s loss and the investor’s compensation claim be kept separate?

An economic loss in an investment fund does not constitute a single type of claim in law. The balance that may be distributed to unitholders in the liquidation process, the assets alleged to have been unlawfully removed from the fund’s property, and the loss arising from a particular investor’s own transaction should each be examined separately. This distinction concerns who may apply, to whom payment will be made and the prevention of the same loss being remedied twice.

The liquidation claim is connected with the right to share in the distributable balance after the liquidation of the fund’s assets. Article 28 of the Communiqué on Principles Regarding Investment Funds takes as its basis the distribution of the liquidation balance to participation unitholders in proportion to their units. The difference between the amount originally invested and the amount received in liquidation therefore does not, by itself, prove that a particular person is responsible for an unlawful act. The liquidation account should show the value of the assets, the fund’s liabilities, expenses compliant with the legislation and payments made previously. [6]

The fund’s loss arises, for example, in an allegation that the fund’s resources were reduced through transactions contrary to the fund’s interest. Article 53 of the Capital Markets Law (SPKn) separates the fund’s property from the property of the management company and the custodian, and protects fund assets against being directed to other debts. It should not be assumed that a general attachment can be imposed on the fund portfolio for an investor’s personal claim; the protections in Article 53 concerning attachment, interim injunctions and inclusion in the bankruptcy estate should be observed. Because of this structure, the recovery of an asset determined to belong to the fund and the payment of direct compensation to a single investor are not the same legal act. [7]

The resulting practical consequence is this: it should be made clear whether a claim concerning a common fund loss is asserted on the fund’s account or on account of a loss relating to the investor’s own property. Holding units cannot be turned into an assumption that the investor has a direct and individual right of return over each asset in the fund portfolio. The status in which the claim is brought, the representation arrangement and the legal outcome sought must be determined according to the specific case.

As regards the personal compensation claim, the duty of the person responsible, the obligation breached and the link with the loss should be shown. For portfolio management companies, the obligations to protect investors’ interests, to act with due care, to manage conflicts of interest and to take investment decisions based on reliable data are important. Delegating management activity to another institution also does not automatically remove the founder’s responsibility under the legislation. [8] [6]

The role of the custodian should also be examined separately. Article 56 of the Law imposes obligations on the custodian in matters such as valuation, unit transactions and the compliance of instructions; it regulates liability for loss arising from failure to perform its duty and reserves the unitholders’ right of action. This provision does not mean, however, that every fund loss can be claimed unconditionally from the custodian. The specific breach of duty and the link with the loss should be assessed. [7]

The appointment of İş Bankası and Ziraat Bankası to carry out the liquidation cannot be interpreted as meaning that all losses from the past period were transferred to these banks. The joint liability of the former and the new founder under Article 29(5) of the Communiqué is a provision concerning a change of founder. The authority granted for liquidation should not be treated as equivalent to a legal transfer of founder status; the banks’ liability arising from their own duties is reserved separately. [6] [2]

When the loss calculation is being prepared, it is useful to keep a payment table consistent with these distinctions. Purchase and redemption records, cash inflows and outflows, announced valuations, liquidation distributions and other collections should be tracked in the same file. Loss arising from ordinary market movements should be distinguished from loss caused by the alleged breach; a disputed unit price should not be accepted as an undisputed measure of loss merely because it has been announced.

In what ways does a criminal investigation contribute to the recovery of losses?

The main contribution of a criminal investigation for the investor is that it can reveal from which transactions the loss arose, who carried out those transactions and where the assets connected with the crime are located. Its economic result depends on the nature of the evidence obtained in the specific file and on the legal remedies available. Temporal proximity between the liquidation of a fund and the investor’s loss does not, by itself, show that the entire loss stems from a crime.

Disputes concerning fund management often involve transactions that cannot be understood from the account statement in the investor’s hands. The fall in the unit value may be visible; however, by which order, on what date, from whom and on what economic grounds the fund purchased a particular asset should be investigated separately. In particular, when the relationships between the accounts that traded, the data used in portfolio valuation and the decision-making processes are examined together, losses explainable by ordinary market movements can be distinguished more soundly from the results of unlawful transactions.

For this reason, it is useful not to be content with merely stating the amount of the loss in the application, but to give reasons for investigating the following records with regard to the transactions giving rise to suspicion:

• The fund’s portfolio composition in the relevant periods, unit value calculations and the bases of valuation.
• Order, transaction, clearing and custody records, together with the dates and amounts of cash movements.
• Shareholding, management or other relevant connections between the persons transacted with and the managers.
• Records concerning the taking of investment decisions, authorizations and existing internal control findings.
• Public disclosure statements, documents provided to investors, and possible discrepancies between these and the actual transactions.

This list does not contain an allegation that irregularities are necessarily present in every document. The scope of the records to be examined should be determined according to which event is to be clarified. The investor’s orderly presentation of their own purchase and sale dates, the number of units, the payments made and the disclosures that reached them also makes it easier to distinguish their personal loss from the position of other investors.

CMK Article 234 grants the victim and the complainant the rights to request the collection of evidence, to request copies of documents without compromising the confidentiality and purpose of the investigation, and to have the file examined through the statutory procedure. Once a public prosecution is brought, a request to intervene may be considered within the framework of CMK Article 237. Holding fund units does not automatically confer the status of intervening party (katılan) for every alleged offense; the relationship of having been harmed by the offense should be substantiated. Intervention also does not, by itself, mean that a judgment awarding compensation in the investor’s favor will be rendered. [9]

When the records in the criminal file are to be used in a private-law dispute, it should be explained which allegation those documents prove. For example, the transfer of money to a particular account may not, by itself, resolve the amount of the claim or who the debtor is. The legal ground of the transfer, its effect on the fund and its connection with the investor’s claim should be assessed separately. Conducting the criminal and civil proceedings consistently may also prevent different calculations from being made concerning the same event.

Which acts may give rise to criminal liability?

A fall in the fund’s value, the failure of an investment strategy or a payment at the end of liquidation smaller than expected is not sufficient for a direct characterization as a crime. The criminal assessment should be based on a specific act of a specific person and on all the elements of the relevant offense. Breach of an administrative regulation, breach of contract and conduct constituting an offense should be distinguished from one another. A manager having authority over a decision and knowingly carrying out an unlawful transaction are also not the same fact. [10]

Insider trading and market fraud

Under SPKn Article 106, insider trading involves examining whether transactions were carried out and a benefit obtained using qualified information concerning the capital market instrument or the issuer that has not yet been disclosed to the public. It is not sufficient for the fund manager to have knowledge about the market; the nature of the information used, how it was obtained, its connection with the transaction and the other statutory conditions should be established. [7]

Transaction-based market fraud under SPKn Article 107(1), by contrast, concerns transactions intended to create a misleading impression about price, price changes, supply or demand. Coordinated orders, account movements or purchases and sales may be examined from this perspective. For this offense, the separate occurrence of an individual loss to the investor and the commission of the offense are not the same issue. The loss and the causal link must be proved separately for compensation purposes. [11]

Article 107(2), on the other hand, concerns the aim of influencing the price or value of capital market instruments or investors’ decisions through misleading information, news, comments or reports, and the obtaining of a benefit by this means. For example, a valuation report being disputed and a benefit being obtained by knowingly preparing a misleading report are separate possibilities. The SPK’s explanations also treat transaction-based and information-based market fraud as different types of offense. [12]

Breach of trust and disguised transfer of profit

SPKn Article 110(1)(a) regulates acts such as using capital market instruments, cash and other valuables entrusted to an investment firm or to the fund boards and collateral officers listed in the article for one’s own benefit or the benefit of another. Without identifying the institution listed in the article and the entrustment relationship, it cannot be accepted that every fund management dispute falls within this subparagraph.

For investment funds, Article 110(1)(c) is particularly important. This subparagraph expressly covers collective investment undertakings; it concerns reducing profit or property, or preventing its increase, by carrying out transactions with related persons that are contrary to comparables and to the principles of prudence and honesty in commercial life. Article 110(1)(b), by contrast, is framed in terms of publicly held companies. Relying solely on this second subparagraph when describing a fund dispute may leave the scope incomplete. [7]

For this reason, rather than the subsequent loss in value of an asset, the conditions on the transaction date should be examined: Is the counterparty related? From which comparable did the price or other terms applied depart? Is there an economic justification for the difference? What reduction arose in the fund’s property? What was the knowledge and role of the authorized persons in this transaction? The answers to these questions distinguish a criminal allegation from general dissatisfaction with an investment.

Acts under general criminal provisions

Depending on the circumstances of the specific case, fraud, breach of trust or document forgery under the TCK may also be considered. Obtaining money from an investor through fraudulent statements, using an asset delivered for a specific purpose outside that purpose, or creating a false document to conceal a transaction do not require the same legal examination. The conditions for each offense and its relationship with the special law are determined separately.

Listing several offense names against the same person or company does not, by itself, strengthen the application. The strength of the application comes from concrete elements such as which statement was false, by whom it was made, how it affected the investment decision and how it is corroborated by cash movements. Being connected with the company is also not, by itself, sufficient for criminal liability; duty, knowledge, participation and intent should be examined on a person-by-person basis.

How does an application to the SPK differ from a criminal report to the prosecutor’s office?

An application to the SPK allows an allegation of a breach of capital markets legislation to be submitted to the Board’s examination and supervision. The application should state the name and code of the fund, the relevant date range, the transaction or disclosure, the right alleged to have been infringed and the existing documents. A statement merely to the effect of “I made a loss” may be insufficient to identify the specific act the Board is to investigate.

In its explanation for investors, the SPK also recommends that the date of the transaction, the capital market instrument, the institution concerned and the infringed right be stated with specific information and documents. The Board’s administrative examination in this context concerns compliance with the legislation; such an application does not result in a decision to compensate the investor’s personal loss. [13]

SPKn Article 115 regulates a different application: for an investigation to be conducted into offenses defined or referred to in the Law, a written application by the Board to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) is required. This is a prerequisite to the criminal proceedings. An investor’s petition to the SPK does not replace the Board’s written application to the prosecutor’s office. Nor can the Board’s taking of administrative measures be accepted as proof that such an application has been made, without it being seen that a separate decision to file a criminal report exists. [7]

If there is suspicion of an independent offense subject to the general provisions, an application to the prosecutor’s office is assessed separately. However, it should not be thought that the special investigation prerequisite can be overcome simply by giving the same act the name of another offense. The authorities to apply to and the legal characterization of the charge are determined according to the actual structure of the event.

In preparing the application, it is important to present the chronology of events and the evidence consistently with one another. A transaction known with certainty and a suspicion one asks to be investigated should be described separately; a person without direct knowledge should not relay an allegation heard from someone else as if it were a definite finding. If another existing investigation is known, the relevant file information and the connection may also be disclosed. This prevents the same event from being described with contradictory amounts and dates in different applications.

Under what conditions are seizure, return to the victim and confiscation applied?

Seizure is not a general collection measure securing every kind of claim the investor has. The basis for a protective measure that may be applied in criminal procedure is determined according to the alleged offense and the relationship of the asset with the offense. The fact that a suspect is wealthy or that the investor has suffered a large loss does not, by itself, justify the seizure of all of that person’s assets.

CMK Article 128 requires, for the offenses listed in the article, strong suspicion based on concrete evidence that the offense was committed and that the asset was obtained from these offenses. Assets such as immovable property, bank accounts, receivables, negotiable instruments and company shares may come into question. The conditions of a report by the relevant institution and of a judge’s decision are also observed. Although TCK Articles 155, 157 and 158 are in the catalogue, it cannot be assumed that all the conditions of Article 128 are met merely on the basis of an allegation under SPKn Article 106 or 107. [9]

To substantiate the request, the amount alleged to have come from the transaction under investigation, the account or asset to which it was directed, and their connection with the persons concerned should be explained. The transfer of the amount to another account may require investigation; but it does not lead to the conclusion that every subsequent account holder participated in the offense. The third party’s knowledge, legal position and the manner in which the property was acquired are also important.

The fund’s property and the own property of the manager, the portfolio management company or the person alleged to have obtained a benefit should also be kept separate. This distinction affects the interests of all unitholders in the same fund. It cannot be said that an amount in the common fund property must be paid only to the investor who applied, without regard to the other rights holders; ownership, representation and distribution principles should be examined.

Under CMK Article 131(2), return comes into question where the asset seized under Article 128 belongs to the victim harmed by the offense and is no longer required as evidence. For this reason, together with the statement “I have suffered a loss,” the right and ownership relationship over the asset whose return is requested should also be established. A request for return cannot be turned into a request that all of a person’s debts be calculated and apportioned from the criminal file. [9]

Confiscation, by contrast, is a security measure distinct from a protective measure. TCK Article 55 regulates proceeds obtained from crime and assets created through their conversion; with respect to the first paragraph of the same article, confiscation is made conditional on the pecuniary benefit not being capable of being returned to the victim. The legally protected good faith of a subsequent acquirer is also taken into account. The investor should therefore not assume that the money will be transferred to them merely because confiscation has been requested. Return and the collection of a private-law claim should be pursued on separate legal bases. [10]

How does effective repentance affect payments to investors?

Effective repentance is the law’s attachment of criminal consequences to payment or reparation in certain offenses and under certain conditions. The same payment is not made in all capital markets offenses; nor does making a payment end the public prosecution in every case. For the investor, it must first be determined to whom the payment will be made, which loss it will remedy and how it will affect their remaining claims.

Return to the fund and payment to the Treasury in disguised profit transfers

Within the framework of SPKn Article 21(4), upon the Board’s determination of a profit transfer, the return of the transferred amount, together with statutory interest, to the company or collective investment undertaking whose property or profit was reduced is requested. The obligation to return is directed at the party to whom the profit was transferred. For the fund, this return may affect the economic position of unitholders by increasing the fund’s property; however, it should not be treated as a separate compensation payment made to an individual investor.

SPKn Article 110(3), for its part, provides, for offenses under Article 110(1)(b) and (c), for payment to the Treasury of twice the amount of this payment in addition to the return in question. Where its conditions are met, the consequences in terms of timing are as follows:

[7]

The practice in the SPK’s Bulletin No. 2026/39 of June 17, 2026 also specifies these two separate payments. The amount paid to the Treasury is not additional compensation to be distributed to investors. The payment period set in the bulletin for the relevant event, however, cannot be used as a general period applicable to all funds. The specific Board decision, the payment account, the amount and the stage the investigation has reached should be examined together. [14]

Liquidation distribution and reparation of loss by the perpetrator are not the same transaction

The sale of the fund’s existing assets and their distribution to unitholders does not, by itself, establish that the suspect or defendant has remedied the loss by showing repentance. Liquidation is the distribution of the existing fund property in accordance with the liquidation procedure. In an effective repentance assessment, by contrast, the alleged act, the loss to be remedied or the amount to be returned, the person making the payment, the intention behind the payment and the statutory timing conditions are decisive.

The practical consequence of this distinction is clear: the payment to the investor of money in the fund’s own account and the bringing back by the responsible person of an unlawfully transferred asset should be recorded separately. The mere appearance of a payment in an account does not explain which legal obligation has been performed. The basis of the payment and the claim to which it relates should be stated in the documents.

TCK Article 168 and the special provision on market fraud

With regard to breach of trust or fraud subject to the general provisions, TCK Article 168 attaches certain reductions to the full reparation of the loss through repentance. Where reparation is made before the prosecution begins, a reduction of the penalty by up to two-thirds is possible; where it is made after the prosecution has begun but before judgment, a reduction by up to half is possible. In the case of partial reparation, the victim’s consent is additionally required. These provisions should not be substituted for the special payment conditions in Article 110(3). [10]

In the provision on transaction-based market fraud in SPKn Article 107(3), by contrast, payment to the Treasury of twice the benefit, having regard to the statutory minimum, is at issue. Here too, the Treasury payment does not automatically remedy the investor’s individual loss. This special possibility is for Article 107(1); it cannot be applied automatically to insider trading or information-based market fraud. [11]

In agreements involving direct payment to the investor as well, the payment amount, the relevant loss item, the status of rights in the fund liquidation and any remaining claim should be clearly written. Receiving a partial payment and waiving all claims are different declarations of intent. The effect of the payment on the criminal file and the scope of a release or settlement under private law should be set out without being confused with one another.

How should a criminal investigation and a compensation action be conducted together?

The claim, the responsible person and the legal ground should be substantiated

In preparing a private-law claim, it should first be determined which property has been harmed and what legal outcome is sought. Recovery of an asset belonging to the fund, a personal loss arising from incorrect or incomplete information given to the investor, non-payment of the redemption price of fund units and breach of the custody obligation are not the same action. The plaintiff’s status, against whom the claim will be directed and to whose account the payment will be made should be established together with this distinction.

When assessing the liability of the portfolio management company, a manager, the custodian, a distributor or a person alleged to have benefited from the transaction, the duty and specific act of each should be shown. The appearance of a bank’s name in the distribution channel, or a person’s holding a position in the company, does not by itself result in liability for the entire loss. If more than one person has contributed to the same loss, the legal conditions for joint liability are examined separately. The contract and information documents between the investor and the institution should be assessed together with the obligations under the legislation. [7]

Fund management and individual portfolio management should not be confused either. The provision on written portfolio management agreements in Article 34 of Communiqué No. III-55.1 expressly excludes the funds of which the company is the founder. It cannot be concluded from this provision that every participation unitholder has entered into an individual portfolio management agreement of the same nature. The applicable liability and time-limit rules are determined according to the actual nature of the relationship. [8]

How are findings in the criminal file used in a civil action?

Transaction records, expert examinations and other documents obtained in the criminal file may help explain specific allegations in a civil action. Nevertheless, the total amount in the criminal file and a particular investor’s compensation claim should not be treated as the same. To whom the loss belongs, the accounting period, the payments made to the investor and the connection with the alleged breach are also assessed for the purposes of the civil dispute.

Under Article 74 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), the civil judge, in deciding on the fault and the capacity of discernment of the person causing the damage, is not bound by the provisions of criminal law on liability or by an acquittal. The criminal judge’s decision on the assessment of fault and the determination of the damage does not bind the civil judge either. Nor should this provision be read as meaning that all factual findings in the criminal file are without effect. An acquittal cannot be turned, without examining its reasoning, into the conclusion that the compensation claim will necessarily be rejected; nor does a conviction ensure automatic acceptance of the amount claimed for every investor. [15]

To the extent that its decision depends on the outcome of another action or of an administrative determination, the civil court may assess a stay pending a preliminary question under HMK Article 165. The mere opening of a criminal investigation does not require all civil actions to be stayed. It should be explained which fact is to be awaited and why, and whether a decision can be made on the existing evidence. Likewise, if the legal conditions for the claim are met, bringing an action before the liquidation is completed may also be considered; the six-month liquidation period is not a general prohibition on bringing an action. [16]

Interim protection and time limits should be monitored separately

Precautionary attachment under Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) for monetary claims; interim injunctions under HMK Article 389 et seq. for the right in dispute; and preservation of evidence under HMK Article 400 et seq. for evidence at risk of being lost or of becoming significantly difficult to obtain later are subject to different conditions. In precautionary attachment, the rule is a monetary claim that is not secured by a pledge and has fallen due; for a claim not yet due, the special conditions in the law are required. The fact that seizure has been requested in the criminal file does not make the assessment of these remedies unnecessary. The subject of the request, prima facie proof, security and the complementary steps after the decision should be prepared in accordance with their own procedure. In claims directed at the fund’s property, the SPKn Article 53 protection explained above should also be observed; these assets and the own property of the responsible persons should not be confused with each other. [17]; [16]

Filing a petition with the SPK or a criminal report with the prosecutor’s office is not a safeguard that automatically stops all private-law time limits. In compensation claims arising from tort, the two-year period starts when the damage and the person liable for compensation become known; the ten-year period starts when the act is committed. If a longer statute of limitations is provided for the act requiring punishment, the special rule in TBK Article 72 is also considered. In claims arising from contract, by contrast, a single period cannot be stated for every file: the general period in TBK Article 146, the special periods in Article 147, the legal nature of the relationship and the date on which the claim fell due should be examined. In particular, the connection with the provisions on mandate in the fund relationship should not be overlooked. [15]

The court with subject-matter jurisdiction and mediation as a condition precedent to litigation are also determined according to the nature of the parties and the transaction. The disputes of all fund investors should not be treated in advance as consumer transactions; the provisions on commercial cases and consumer disputes should be examined together with their relevant exceptions. In matters where mediation as a condition precedent to litigation applies, the suspension of the statute of limitations and the non-running of the time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) from the application to the mediation office until the final report are based on the special rule in Article 18/A of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes. This effect cannot be extended to all applications made to unrelated authorities. [18]; [19]

How is the loss calculated and how are liquidation payments taken into account?

The amount the investor originally paid, while an important record, is not the sole measure of loss in every dispute. The initial investment amount, the last announced fund value and the amount paid in liquidation represent different data. A reliable compensation calculation cannot be built without assessing the date on which the unlawful transaction took place, whether the investor was a unitholder on that date, the purchase and redemption transactions and the fund’s ordinary investment risk.

In the loss calculation, the alleged breach should first be defined. A purchase at a false unit value, the reduction of fund resources through a transaction departing from comparables, or the non-payment of a redemption price that has become due require different calculations. The position the property would have been in had the unlawful act not occurred should be determined with reasons; the comparable used, the valuation date and the assumptions should be explained. Having the court-appointed expert carry out only a “principal minus collections” calculation may obscure these differences.

The party claiming compensation should establish the facts giving rise to its loss and to the other party’s liability. Difficulty in proving the exact amount of the loss is assessed within the framework of TBK Article 50; this possibility does not mean that a figure without documents or reasons may be claimed. Interest, the date of default and any other loss items should also be justified separately according to the basis of the claim. [15]

The main aim regarding the effect of liquidation payments is to determine the remaining claim correctly while preventing the same loss item from being collected twice. However, it is also not correct for every liquidation payment to be deducted again from all compensation items regardless of how it was calculated. For example, if the effect of the unlawful act has been separately isolated on the basis of the fund’s current value, it should be checked whether a distribution already taken into account in that value calculation has been deducted a second time. The offset should be consistent with the calculation method and the legal ground of the payment.

For this purpose, three records may be kept together: fund transactions and unit movements, the loss calculation linked to the alleged breach, and the collections made. For each collection, the date, payer, amount, description and related claim should be stated. The return of an amount to the fund’s account and the arrival of a payment in the investor’s account are also separate stages. When a new payment or valuation emerges, the calculations submitted to the liquidation unit and in the ongoing dispute should be updated consistently.

Does the Investor Compensation Center pay fund losses?

The liquidation of a fund does not, by itself, give rise to a right to payment from the Investor Compensation Center (Yatırımcı Tazmin Merkezi, YTM). The YTM’s general protection concerns an investment firm’s inability to pay cash belonging to the investor that it holds or manages within the scope of investment services, or to deliver capital market instruments, and the adoption of the necessary compensation decision. A fall in the price of fund units and a failure to perform a delivery or payment obligation are different situations. The YTM’s official explanation excludes from its scope losses arising from market price movements and from investment advice. [20]

Furthermore, the gradual liquidation (tedrici tasfiye) of an investment firm should not be confused with the liquidation of an investment fund. Gradual liquidation under Article 86 of the Law is a special process operated, after a compensation decision, with respect to the relevant institution other than a bank. Fund liquidation, by contrast, concerns bringing the separated fund property to an end and distributing it to rights holders. [7] [6]

For this reason, the application should not be limited to the statement “my fund has been liquidated”; the cash or instrument expected to be returned, the obligated institution and the transaction not performed should be identified. A complaint to the SPK does not automatically secure a compensation decision either: the Board supervises compliance with the legislation; it is not a judicial authority that orders individual losses to be paid. [13]

What does the new bill on funds in liquidation aim to change?

The Bill on Certain Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation, docket No. 2/3939, submitted to the Speaker’s Office of the TBMM on October 9, 2026, was adopted in the Planning and Budget Committee on October 14. As of the check carried out on October 18, 2026, the stage verifiable from TBMM sources is adoption in committee. Since its entry into force has not been verified, the bill has not been applied as current law in this review. The explanations below show the provisions envisaged by the text submitted to the Speaker’s Office. [21] [22]

The bill aims at a special model for funds that were the subject of the September 17 decisions and whose liquidation had not been completed as of the date of publication of the law. In this model, a link is established between the SPK’s findings, the collection powers of TMSF and the recovery of assets identified in the criminal file.

Article 6 as submitted to the Speaker’s Office further proposes that the reports underlying SPK criminal reports perform the function of the report in CMK Article 128; Article 5 proposes to regulate TMSF’s special collection powers following an SPK finding. The distribution role envisaged for the YTM after liquidation does not mean that the ordinary YTM protection covers market losses. [23]

The version of the text also matters: while the voluntary return calculation in the submitted bill is based on a benchmark return, the committee news report refers to the average of the consumer price index (CPI) and the domestic producer price index (Yİ-ÜFE). The initial text should not be presented as identical to the final text adopted by the committee. Nor can the offset provision in the bill be interpreted as meaning that investors automatically assign all their compensation claims. In assessing existing rights, the provisions in force should be taken as the basis; the outcome of the legislative process should be followed separately. [23] [22]

How should the investor prepare the application file?

Preparing the application is work that can begin with the records available. The investor is not expected to work out all of the fund’s transactions in advance; the investor needs to separate the events of which they have direct knowledge from the points they ask the competent authorities to investigate. The order below may change because of the time limits of the specific case and the need for urgent protection.

• Identify the scope of the fund and the transactions. Match the fund’s full title, code, number of units, account holder, and purchase and redemption orders against the current liquidation list. Do not record a pending order and a transaction that has been executed but whose price has not been paid as the same thing.
• Preserve your personal records. Keep account statements, bank receipts, transaction confirmations, contracts, investor information forms, KAP disclosures and correspondence sent directly to you in chronological order. Make it clear where and when each document was obtained; request missing records in writing from the relevant institution.
• Prepare an event and claim table. Match the definite transaction dates, the alleged breaches, the specific role of the person thought to be responsible and the records that need to be investigated. Do not write an unproven relationship as if it were a definite finding.
• Monitor the liquidation records. Request information from the appointed institution on unitholding, pending orders, interim payments and offset records. If there are missing or contradictory records, request correction with supporting grounds; follow the KAP and SPK disclosures relating to the fund code.
• Direct SPK and criminal-law applications to the appropriate authorities. Assess together the request for administrative examination, the special prerequisite to the criminal proceedings in SPKn Article 115 and any independent acts subject to the general criminal provisions. If a connection with an existing investigation is known, report the file details.
• Examine protective and private-law remedies without delay. If there is concrete information on the connection of property with the offense, consider the appropriate protective measure. Do not proceed on the assumption that the outcome of the liquidation must necessarily be awaited before an action, mediation, precautionary attachment or preservation of evidence.
• Keep your time-limit and collection record up to date. Notification dates, application and objection periods, payment offers and collections made should be tracked in a single calendar. In an objection to a decision of non-prosecution, the current period under CMK Article 173 is two weeks from notification to the person harmed by the offense; the authority to apply to should be determined by examining the decision and the law together. [9]

This preparation makes it easier to assess the personal file; it does not create a guarantee of collection. The outcome depends on proof of liability and loss, the applicable procedure, the assets that can be found and the position of other rights holders. Payment rates circulating on social media or the outcomes of similar funds should not be used in place of the calculation for the investor’s own file.

How should payment offers, settlement and withdrawal of a complaint be assessed?

A criminal application should be made for the purpose of investigating a suspicion of crime. Using the application solely to create pressure for payment, spreading unverified allegations, or saying that every criminal proceeding will end if payment is made is not a sound legal approach. An application based on concrete facts and settlement negotiations under private law should be conducted with regard to their own purposes and consequences. A suspect’s agreeing to pay or proposing a settlement also does not, by itself, prove that the offense was committed.

In a payment proposal, one should not look only at the total amount. By which person and for which debt the payment will be made; principal, interest and other items; installment and default conditions; the effect of liquidation distributions; the remaining claim; and the scope of the release and settlement should be clear. Particularly where there is more than one responsible person or different loss items, it should be determined which claims end in return for a single payment.

Withdrawal of a complaint is not a general act that ends the public prosecution for all offenses. Whether the offense is subject to complaint, its legal nature and special provisions should be examined. Similarly, one investor’s agreement does not automatically extinguish the rights of other unitholders or the common claim belonging to the fund. When a partial collection is received, the status of the remaining rights should be clearly regulated; it should not be thought that a general “all my rights are reserved” clause inconsistent with the actual content of the agreement will by itself be sufficient. [10]

Related articles: Seizure in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Limits, Objection and Routes to Return; Interim Injunction and Precautionary Attachment: How to Protect Your Rights Without Waiting for the Outcome of the Case; Statute of Limitations and Preclusive Periods: How Is the Time Limit for Bringing an Action Determined?; Criminal Investigations, Seizure and Remedying Investor Losses in Investment Funds Under Liquidation; Liability of Banks and Brokerage Firms for Unexecuted Fund Sell Orders; 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

The SPK’s liquidation decision makes visible the legal process in which the investor’s loss will be investigated; it does not, by itself, settle who the responsible persons are or what amount will be paid. A criminal investigation may contribute to the collection of records the investor cannot access, to the examination of the suspicion of crime on a person-by-person and transaction-by-transaction basis and, under appropriate conditions, to the preservation and return of assets.

What is decisive for the recovery of the loss is the correct linking of this contribution with liquidation and private-law claims. The distribution of the fund’s own assets, the return of an unlawful transfer to the fund, an effective repentance payment made to the Treasury and the investor’s personal compensation should not be substituted for one another. The status in which the claim is brought, the responsible person, the loss calculation, time limits and payments made should be assessed together.

The practicable approach for the investor is to verify the current fund decision, preserve personal transaction records, substantiate the allegation and pursue the necessary applications within their time limits. The legislative process of the special bill that came onto the agenda in 2026 should be followed separately; provisions whose entry into force has not yet been verified should not be presented as a guarantee of payment or as a current application requirement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the SPK’s liquidation decision show that the fund managers committed a crime?

No. Liquidation and trading restrictions are administrative decisions; criminal liability is a separate assessment concerning a specific act of a specific person. The connection between the fund’s loss and the alleged act, and all elements of the offense, are investigated. The mere presence of a company or fund name on a liquidation list should not be presented as a finding of guilt.

Does the criminal investigation or the liquidation have to be completed before a compensation action can be brought?

There is no such requirement in every case. If the conditions for the claim are met, recourse to an appropriate private-law remedy at an earlier stage may be considered. The court may treat another file as a preliminary question to the extent that its outcome is necessary. It should not be assumed that the criminal or liquidation process must be completed in order to preserve application time limits.

Is seized money paid directly to the investor?

Not automatically. For return under CMK Article 131, entitlement, ownership of the asset and its necessity as evidence are assessed. An asset belonging to the fund and the investor’s personal claim are not the same. The rights of other unitholders and the fund’s representation and distribution principles are also taken into account.

If effective repentance applies, does the investor receive a triple payment?

No. Under SPKn Article 110(3), return to the fund or the relevant institution and payment of twice that amount to the Treasury are different obligations. The amount going to the Treasury is not multiple compensation to be given to the investor. The investor’s personal claim and their right in the fund distribution are determined on their own legal bases.

Does receiving an interim payment end the right to the remaining compensation?

An interim payment does not, by itself, mean that all claims have been waived. The basis of the payment, the relevant liquidation decision, the offset in the final account and, if signed, the scope of the agreement should be examined. The same loss cannot be collected twice; however, an amount already taken into account in the calculation should not be deducted a second time.

Is applying to the YTM sufficient for a liquidation loss?

No. The YTM’s general protection depends on the statutory scope and on the conditions for a compensation decision. A fund loss arising from market price movements is not the same situation as the failure to deliver cash or a capital market instrument. A liquidation decision does not give rise to a YTM payment right for all investment losses.

Does applying to the SPK or the prosecutor’s office stop the statute of limitations?

It cannot be accepted that these applications automatically stop the time limits of all compensation claims. The legal ground of the claim, the applicable period, the dates of knowledge and of the claim falling due, and the statutory grounds for suspension or interruption are examined separately. The special effect on time limits in mediation as a condition precedent to litigation is also taken into account only under applicable conditions.

Does the October 2026 bill already provide a right to payment?

A bill does not, by itself, create a payment right in force. In the review dated October 18, 2026, the stage of adoption in committee was verified through TBMM sources. Until the outcome of the legislative process, the final published text and the entry-into-force provision have been seen, the collection, return and distribution mechanisms in the bill should not be applied as if they were current law.

Sources and legal bases

Date on which the sources were accessed and their content checked: October 18, 2026. The legislative provisions and the bill are identified below according to their respective nature.

1. Capital Markets Board (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu), Bulletin No. 2026/60 of September 17, 2026, Section B
2. Capital Markets Board, Bulletin No. 2026/61 of September 17, 2026, Sections A and C
3. Capital Markets Board, Bulletin No. 2026/62 of September 20, 2026, Decision No. 59/1710
4. Capital Markets Board, Bulletin No. 2026/67 of September 30, 2026, Decisions No. 64/1770 and 64/1775
5. Capital Markets Board, Bulletin No. 2026/70, Decision No. 70/1821 of October 15, 2026, Section E
6. Communiqué No. III-52.1 on Principles Regarding Investment Funds (Yatırım Fonlarına İlişkin Esaslar Tebliği), in particular Articles 9, 28, 29 and 33; SPK legislation text
7. Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu), in particular Articles 21, 52–53, 56, 83–86, 96, 106–110 and 115; consolidated text published by Borsa İstanbul
8. Communiqué No. III-55.1 on Principles Regarding Portfolio Management Companies and Their Activities (Portföy Yönetim Şirketleri ve Bu Şirketlerin Faaliyetlerine İlişkin Esaslar Tebliği), in particular Articles 21–22 and 33–35; SPK legislation text
9. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Articles 128, 131, 173, 234 and 237; Ministry of Justice text
10. Law No. 5237, Turkish Criminal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), in particular Articles 2, 20–21, 55, 73, 155, 157–158 and 168; Ministry of Justice text
11. Capital Markets Board, Transaction-Based Market Fraud
12. Capital Markets Board, Market Fraud in the Capital Markets (Manipulation)
13. Capital Markets Board, Where and How to File a Complaint?
14. Capital Markets Board, Bulletin No. 2026/39 of June 17, 2026, p. 5, explanation of the payment under Article 110(3)
15. Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Articles 50–51, 72, 74, 146–149 and 154; TBMM law text
16. Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Articles 165, 389 and 400; TBMM law text
17. Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Articles 257–259; current-law column in the Ministry of Justice’s comparative table dated July 24, 2025, pp. 646–649 (the draft provisions have not been relied on)
18. Ministry of Justice, Department of Mediation (Arabuluculuk Daire Başkanlığı), Frequently Asked Questions on Mediation
19. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/A; Ministry of Justice legislation record
20. Investor Compensation Center, Scope of Protection; description of the scope (the monetary amount on the page has not been used)
21. TBMM, Bill on Certain Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation (Tasfiyesine Karar Verilen Bazı Yatırım Fonları Hakkında Kanun Teklifi), docket No. 2/3939, bill record dated October 9, 2026
22. TBMM, news item dated October 14, 2026 on the adoption of the bill on investment funds in liquidation in the Planning and Budget Committee (Plan ve Bütçe Komisyonu)
23. TBMM, text of bill docket No. 2/3939 as submitted to the Speaker’s Office and its explanatory memorandum, in particular Articles 1 and 4–6; not used as the final post-committee text