Asset Seizure in Fund Investigations: Family Members and Third Parties

Last updated: 25.10.2026 · Author: Attorney Coşkun Genç, Istanbul cybercrime lawyer

In fund investigations, seizure orders often affect not only the suspect but also the suspect's spouse, children, parents and business partners. The bank account can no longer be used, an annotation is entered in the land register, and the vehicle can no longer be sold. This article explains on what legal basis a measure may be applied to assets registered in the names of family members who are not suspects and of third parties, what the term "freezing" used in the news may correspond to, and within what time limit and with which documents the owner may object. For the steps to be taken by investors (persons harmed by the offence), see our guide for investors in fund investigations.

Can the property of a spouse or child be seized in a fund investigation?

Yes, but only under limited conditions. Article 128 CCP governs the seizure of immovable property, vehicles, bank accounts, receivables, negotiable instruments, company shares, safe deposit boxes and other assets "belonging to the suspect or defendant". The same paragraph provides that seizure may be carried out even where these specifically identified assets are in the possession of a person other than the suspect. The decisive question is therefore not so much in whose name the property is registered, but whether it actually belongs to the suspect and whether there is concrete evidence that it was derived from crime.

The conditions of the Article are cumulative: strong suspicion based on concrete evidence that the offence under investigation has been committed and that the property was derived from that offence; inclusion of the offence in the catalogue in paragraph two; a report from the relevant institution on the value derived from the offence; and a judicial order. In the investigation phase the order is given by the criminal judgeship of peace, and in the prosecution (trial) phase by the court hearing the case; by virtue of paragraph nine, the public prosecutor cannot carry out a seizure under this Article on his or her own authority. For immovable property the order is implemented by an annotation in the land register and for vehicles by an annotation in the vehicle register; for bank accounts it is implemented by notification to the bank, and for company shares by notification to the company and the trade registry. Once the order has been given, transactions on the account aimed at rendering it ineffective are null and void (Article 128(3)–(7)).

For fund units, Article 13(7) of the Capital Markets Law (Law No. 6362) is also relevant: requests for interim measures and attachment concerning capital market instruments held in book-entry form are executed only by members of the Central Securities Depository (MKK), that is, by the bank or brokerage firm in whose custody the units are held. The practical way to find out about a measure imposed on a family member's fund units is therefore to request written information from the institution holding them. For the chain of instructions, TEFAS and MKK records, see the article explaining the fund and share trading process.

Are capital markets offences included in the Article 128 CCP catalogue?

No. The offences defined in the Capital Markets Law are not listed in Article 128(2) CCP. The offences in that list that can be linked to fund investigations are breach of trust under Article 155 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and fraud and aggravated fraud under Articles 157–158 TPC. Organised crime appears only through paragraph three of Article 220 TPC, that is, in the form of an armed organisation; laundering of assets derived from crime (Article 282 TPC) is not in the list either. Recourse to Article 128 CCP in a given case therefore depends on the charge covering at least one catalogue offence.

The catalogue offences may be summarised as follows. Aggravated fraud under Article 158 TPC carries 3 to 10 years' imprisonment and a judicial fine in cases such as the use of information systems or of banks or credit institutions as an instrument, or commission by a merchant or company executive in the course of commercial activity; under sub-paragraph (f) the minimum term is four years. Commission by three or more persons increases the penalty by one half, and commission within the framework of the activities of an organisation doubles it. Market fraud under Article 107 of the Capital Markets Law, by contrast, punishes carrying out transactions or disseminating misleading information with the aim of creating a misleading impression about prices with 3 to 5 years' imprisonment; this offence, however, is not included in the Article 128 CCP catalogue.

The only provision of the Capital Markets Law that expressly refers to Article 128 CCP is paragraph six of Article 115/A, concerning embezzlement at crypto-asset service providers; that provision makes seizure under Article 128 CCP and the appointment of a trustee under Article 133 CCP applicable to the offence in Article 110/A, and does not provide a general basis for investment fund investigations. Since the aggravated form of breach of trust under Article 110 of the Capital Markets Law is regulated by reference to Article 155(2) TPC, how the link to Article 155 TPC in the catalogue is established in the specific case should be challenged separately in the objection. Article 133 CCP, which governs the appointment of a trustee to the management of a company, contains a different catalogue: laundering (Article 282 TPC) is included in that list, whereas fraud is not.

Which legal measure does the "freezing" reported in the news correspond to?

"Freezing" is not a general criminal procedure measure in Turkish legislation; the only institution regulated by statute under that name is the freezing of assets under Law No. 6415. When the word is used in the news, it may correspond to one of the measures below; which one can only be determined from the order itself. If you have been affected by a measure as a family member, the first step is to find out the date and number of the order and the provision on which it is based.

Article 128/A CCP: This measure applies only to the three types of offence listed and to the account used in the offence; not every charge in a fund investigation falls within its scope. It is discussed in detail in our article on Article 128/A CCP. MASAK postponement: Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 confers the power to suspend, for seven business days, a transaction that is being attempted or carried out with an obliged party where there is suspicion of laundering or terrorist financing; an obliged party that carries out a transaction in breach of the decision faces an administrative fine equal to the transaction amount and not less than TRY 50,000. This is not a permanent seizure but a short pause for analysis.

Law No. 6415: The Law on the Prevention of the Financing of Terrorism defines its purpose as combating terrorism and the financing of terrorism. Freezing is applied on the basis of UN Security Council lists (Article 5), requests from foreign states (Article 6) and, under Article 7(3), where there are reasonable grounds concerning acts of terrorist financing after the courts have finally ruled that an organisation is a terrorist organisation. Reliance on Law No. 6415 is therefore not to be expected in a fund fraud investigation with no terrorist connection.

What do official sources say about the current investigation?

The Ministry of Justice statement of 22.09.2026 indicated that "judicial and financial measures" had been applied in the investigation conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to prevent assets from being moved out of reach. The Ministry's statement of 01.10.2026 stated that the values of the villas, vehicles, immovable property and bank accounts seized in the investigations would be used, through a pool within the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), for the claims of the right holders. Neither statement specified the provision on which the measures were based, and neither contained any information that measures had been applied to property belonging to family members or third parties. The basis of a specific order must therefore be read from the order itself.

The bill concerning certain investment funds whose liquidation has been ordered appears in the records of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) as Law No. 7596, with the status "enacted". However, this Law does not appear in the Official Gazette indexes of 23, 24 and 25 October 2026 or on mevzuat.gov.tr; in other words, as of 25.10.2026 it has not been published and has not entered into force. What the Law provides with respect to third parties should be assessed on the basis of the published text.

How does proof work for property registered in the names of spouses and children?

In criminal proceedings, the burden of showing that property was derived from crime lies with the investigating authorities; Article 128 CCP expresses this through the requirement of "strong suspicion based on concrete evidence". In practice, however, when a measure is imposed on a family member's property, the suspicion does not weaken unless that person documents his or her own income, the date of acquisition and the source of payment. In other words, although the burden legally remains with the prosecution, the success of the objection depends on the documents submitted by the owner.

The matrimonial property regime is frequently misunderstood in this context. Under Article 219 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), acquired property consists of assets that a spouse obtains for consideration during the matrimonial property regime (such as earnings from work, social security benefits and income from personal property). Under Article 220 TCC, property owned before the marriage and property acquired by inheritance or gift is personal property. Article 222 TCC presumes all property of a spouse to be acquired property until the contrary is proven. This presumption governs the division between the two spouses when the matrimonial property regime is liquidated upon divorce or death; it does not show that the property of a non-suspect spouse belongs to the suspect or derives from crime. Moreover, the right of the non-suspect spouse in the suspect's acquired property is not ownership but a participation claim (katılma alacağı) that arises when the matrimonial property regime comes to an end.

Where a sham transaction (muvazaa) is alleged, the question is whether the registration reflects the true intention. Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098) provides that, in interpreting a contract, regard shall be had to the true and common intention of the parties and not to the words they used to conceal their true purpose. Facts such as the property having been transferred by the suspect shortly beforehand, free of charge or for a low price, or the transferee lacking the means to pay, strengthen the suspicion of a sham transaction. The Court of Cassation has also emphasised that, for property acquired in the names of relatives, this distinction can only be drawn through a comprehensive income investigation.

"…in order to establish, in a manner leaving no room for doubt and open to review by the Court of Cassation, whether the said persons acquired the movable and immovable property in question with the assets alleged to derive from crime, a detailed asset investigation should be carried out in respect of the said persons, including an investigation of all their income-generating activities covering the periods before and after the dates of the transactions…"

Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E. 2024/4155, K. 2024/19482, 19.12.2024 (a vehicle transferred by the defendant to his father-in-law and immovable property acquired by his father; the conviction for laundering was reversed for insufficient investigation)

The significance of the decision is as follows: the statement in the MASAK report that the transfers were "probably" a transfer of criminal proceeds was not considered sufficient, and an investigation into the relatives' income before and after the transactions was required. The same principle can be relied on at the objection stage: by submitting his or her own income history to the file, the family member can establish the outcome of that investigation from the outset.

Is there a risk of confiscation, and how is a bona fide third party protected?

Seizure is a temporary measure; property passes permanently to the State only through a confiscation order given in the judgment. Under Article 54 TPC, confiscation of items is ordered "provided that they do not belong to bona fide third parties"; where a limited real right (for example, a mortgage) exists over the item in favour of a bona fide third party, confiscation is ordered subject to that right. In the case of co-owned items, only the share of the person who participated in the offence is confiscated (Article 54(6)).

More often relevant in fund investigations is confiscation of proceeds under Article 55 TPC: the pecuniary benefit obtained through the offence and the gains resulting from its conversion are confiscated, provided that the benefit cannot be returned to the victim. Confiscation may not be ordered where the person who subsequently acquired the property can rely on the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code protecting good faith (Article 55(3)). Under Article 3 TCC, good faith is presumed; however, a person who has failed to exercise the care required by the circumstances cannot claim good faith. The acquisition of a third party who obtains a real right in reliance on the land register is protected by Article 1023 TCC.

"…that the defendant's spouse, ..., is the registered owner of the vehicle and stated in the statements given at the various stages that the vehicle had been purchased with money saved from working as a carer for patients, … it was found unlawful to order, on the written grounds, the confiscation of the means of transport instead of its return to its owner, without taking into account that there was no evidence in the file contrary to the claim of good faith of the person with property liability (malen sorumlu)."

Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/8458, K. 2025/4257, 19.03.2025 (smuggling case; the confiscation of a vehicle belonging to the spouse was reversed)

Although the decision was given in a smuggling case, the principle can be transposed to fund cases: where the spouse has explained that the property was purchased with his or her own savings and there is no evidence to the contrary, the presumption of good faith operates in the spouse's favour. The Constitutional Court likewise regards the protection of the bona fide owner in seizure and confiscation as a requirement of the right to property.

"…there must be an appropriate causal link between the conduct of the owner of the item that is the subject of the offence or misdemeanour and the breach of the law, and the bona fide owner of the item must be afforded the possibility of recovering the item – provided that it is not dangerous – or the damage sustained by the bona fide owner for this reason must be compensated."

Constitutional Court, Hamit Alihansoy and Others, App. No. 2017/35581, 29.09.2020, § 53

In the same judgment, the Constitutional Court found it disproportionate that requests to lift a measure imposed under Article 128 CCP, which had lasted 6 years, 9 months and 14 days, had been left unreasoned, and held that the right to property had been violated. The excessive length of a measure and the failure to respond to a request for its lifting are matters that may also be assessed separately in an individual application.

How and when does a third party object to a seizure order?

An objection to a judge's decision is lodged with the authority that gave the decision, by petition or by a declaration to the court clerk, within two weeks of the day on which the decision was learned (Article 268(1) CCP). If the judge who gave the decision does not find the objection well-founded, he or she forwards it to the reviewing authority within three days at the latest; for decisions of a criminal judgeship of peace, that authority is, as a rule, the criminal judgeship of peace next in numerical order. Even if the time limit is missed, the door is not entirely closed: a person whose property has been seized may at any time request a decision from the judge under Article 127(4) CCP; return may be requested under Article 131 CCP where retention of the seized property is no longer necessary or it becomes clear that it will not be confiscated; and a decision rejecting such a request may also be challenged by objection.

1. Find out about the order: Ask the bank, the land registry or the MKK member institution in writing for the date and number of the measure and the authority that ordered it; keep a record of the date on which you learned of it.
2. Identify the legal basis: Is it Article 128 CCP, Articles 123/127, Article 128/A, or a MASAK postponement? The remedy and the time limit vary accordingly.
3. Check the conditions: Does the charge cover a catalogue offence, has an institutional report been obtained, has concrete evidence been shown that the property was derived from crime, and does the property belong to the suspect?
4. Document ownership and source: Do the date of acquisition and the source of payment predate the period associated with the suspect, or do they stem from independent income?
5. Object within two weeks: Frame your request in stages: full lifting or, failing that, partial lifting.
6. Follow the proceedings: Request the lifting of the measure upon a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) or an acquittal; consider the compensation route for unjust seizure.

Partial lifting: salary accounts and essential expenses

Article 128 CCP contains no express exception for salary accounts or living expenses; the request is therefore based on the principle of proportionality and on the fact that the property was not derived from crime. A decision of a criminal judgeship of peace referred to in the decision of the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2020/7349, K. 2020/6876, shows that, for salary accounts, the most recent salary amount was allowed to be withdrawn within that month for monthly expenses and the seizure was applied to the remaining amount. Similarly, for accounts receiving credits whose connection with the offence cannot be shown, such as salary, pension or rental income, it may be requested that the measure be limited with respect to those amounts. For items such as vehicles or construction machinery, delivery to the person concerned for safekeeping, subject to return on demand and, if necessary, against security, may be requested under Article 132(5) CCP.

Compensation for unjust seizure

Article 141(1)(j) CCP grants a person whose items or other assets have been seized although the statutory conditions were not met, or whose property has not been returned in due time, the right to claim pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation from the State; this right does not depend on the status of suspect. However, the claim must be brought before the high criminal court within three months of notification that the decision or judgment has become final and, in any event, within one year of it becoming final (Article 142(1)). The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the dismissal of an action brought while the investigation was still pending, on the ground that no finally established wrong existed (E. 2023/49, K. 2025/1045, 04.02.2025).

Which documents should be submitted with the objection?

The aim is to show, in chronological order, that the property belongs to you rather than to the suspect and that it comes from your own resources rather than from criminal proceeds. The documents below should be gathered so as to cover the periods both before and after the period associated with the suspect.

• ✓Land register record, vehicle registration certificate and sale contract; the official deed showing the date of acquisition.
• ✓Transfer receipts and bank statements showing the outflow from the account from which the purchase price was paid.
• ✓Income documents: payslips, Social Security Institution (SGK) service record, tax registration certificate and tax returns, lease agreements.
• ✓Loan agreement and repayment schedule; records showing that the property was purchased with a loan.
• ✓For property acquired by inheritance or gift: certificate of inheritance, estate records, deed of gift (personal property under Article 220 TCC).
• ✓For fund units and investment accounts: the MKK investment account statement obtained via e-Devlet and the purchase dates.
• ✓For company shares: articles of association, Trade Registry Gazette, receipts for capital contributions.
• ✓A list of regular credits to the account such as salary, pension or rent (for partial lifting).

What are the common mistakes and exceptions?

• Waiting for formal service: The two-week period runs from the date of "learning" of the order; the day on which the bank informs you may also count as the date of learning.
• Trying to transfer the property: After an order seizing an account, transactions that render the order ineffective are null and void (Article 128(5) CCP); acting in breach of the order may give rise to the offence of abuse of custodial duty under Article 289 TPC (Article 128(8) CCP).
• Confusing the fund's assets with the investor's units: Under Article 53 of the Capital Markets Law, the fund's assets are separate from those of the founder and the custodian; in liquidation, payments may be made only to the unitholders.
• Objecting solely on grounds of kinship: Saying "I am not a suspect" is not enough; the source must be documented.
• Overlooking the laundering risk: A person who, knowing that it constitutes criminal proceeds, accepts, keeps or uses an asset may be punished with 2 to 5 years' imprisonment under Article 282(2) TPC even without having participated in the laundering offence; the family member's statement should therefore be prepared with care.
• Assets belonging to the victim: Where a value seized under Article 128 CCP belongs to the victim harmed by the offence and is no longer needed as evidence, it is returned to its owner (Article 131(2) CCP). For questions concerning the role of the bank, see the article on the bank's liability in fund investments.

Objecting to a Seizure Order with an Istanbul Fund Crimes Lawyer

Where a measure has been applied to a family member's property, three points determine the course of the case: correctly identifying the provision on which the order is based and whether the charge falls within the Article 128 CCP catalogue, not missing the two-week objection period, and demonstrating the date of acquisition and the source of the property chronologically with documents. Av. Coşkun Genç Law Office provides legal support in fund and capital markets investigations conducted in Istanbul, at the stages of reviewing seizure orders, preparing objections and requests for partial lifting, and pursuing claims for return and compensation. In our work as an Istanbul fund crimes lawyer, our approach is to establish the property rights of non-suspect family members separately from the other defences in the criminal file and on the basis of their own evidence.

Anyone wishing to obtain the support of an Istanbul capital markets crimes lawyer may request a preliminary assessment through our contact page, enclosing the seizure order or the bank or land registry notification, the contracts and payment receipts relating to the acquisition of the property, income documents and the MKK investment account statement from e-Devlet. For our general practice area covering offences committed through information systems and banks, see the cybercrimes page.

Sources

1. Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP, Law No. 5271), Articles 123, 127, 128, 128/A, 131, 132, 133, 141, 142, 268 – mevzuat.gov.tr
2. Turkish Penal Code (TPC, Law No. 5237), Articles 54, 55, 155, 158, 220, 282 – mevzuat.gov.tr
3. Capital Markets Law (Law No. 6362), Articles 13, 53, 101, 107, 110, 115/A – mevzuat.gov.tr
4. Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds of Crime, Article 19/A – mevzuat.gov.tr
5. Law No. 6415 on the Prevention of the Financing of Terrorism, Articles 1, 7 – mevzuat.gov.tr
6. Turkish Civil Code (TCC, Law No. 4721), Articles 3, 219, 220, 222, 1023; Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098), Article 19 – mevzuat.gov.tr
7. Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E. 2024/4155, K. 2024/19482, 19.12.2024 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
8. Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/8458, K. 2025/4257, 19.03.2025 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
9. Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/49, K. 2025/1045, 04.02.2025 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
10. Court of Cassation, 16th Criminal Chamber, E. 2020/7349, K. 2020/6876, 18.12.2020 (reversal in the interest of the law – kanun yararına bozma)
11. Constitutional Court, Hamit Alihansoy and Others, App. No. 2017/35581, 29.09.2020 – anayasa.gov.tr
12. Ministry of Justice, press statement, 22.09.2026 – adalet.gov.tr
13. Ministry of Justice, press statement, 01.10.2026 – basin.adalet.gov.tr
14. Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), Tasfiyesine Karar Verilen Bazı Yatırım Fonları Hakkında Kanun Teklifi [Bill on Certain Investment Funds Whose Liquidation Has Been Ordered] (2/3939), Law No. 7596 – tbmm.gov.tr
15. Official Gazette indexes, 23.10.2026 (No. 33409), 24.10.2026 (No. 33410), 25.10.2026 (No. 33411) – resmigazete.gov.tr