Money Laundering Offence (Article 282 TPC): Elements, Penalty, MASAK Process and Defence
Last updated: 28.10.2026 · Author: Attorney Coşkun Genç, Istanbul cybercrime lawyer
Short answer: Laundering of proceeds of crime (money laundering) is the act of taking assets derived from an offence carrying a minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment or more out of the country, or subjecting them to transactions for the purpose of concealing their source or giving them the appearance of legitimacy (Article 282(1) TPC). The penalty is imprisonment from three to seven years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days; a person who knowingly accepts or uses proceeds of crime faces imprisonment from two to five years (Article 282(2)). A postponement of a transaction originating from MASAK (Financial Crimes Investigation Board) lasts at most seven working days (Article 19/A of Law No. 5549). The first step is to find out the legal basis of the restriction and to document the source of the money.
The expression "black money" (kara para) is no longer used in Turkish legislation: Article 26(3) of Law No. 5549 provides that the term "karapara" in other legislation is to be understood as "asset value derived from crime", and the term "karapara aklama suçu" as "laundering offence". What is called the money laundering offence in everyday language is regulated in the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) under the heading "laundering of assets derived from crime".
What is the money laundering offence and what are its elements?
Laundering is the act of obscuring the trail of value derived from another offence or giving it the appearance of a lawful source. It has four elements:
- Predicate offence: It must be an offence whose statutory minimum penalty is six months' imprisonment or more. Fraud, theft, breach of trust and organising illegal betting are frequently encountered examples.
- Asset value: Any value obtained from the offence directly or through conversion, such as money, bank balances, immovable property, vehicles or crypto assets.
- Conduct: Taking the value out of the country, or subjecting it to "various transactions" with the intention of concealing its illegitimate source or creating the impression that it was obtained by legitimate means.
- Intent: The perpetrator must know, at the moment of the transaction, that the value is derived from crime; for the second alternative act, the purpose of concealment or of giving an appearance of legitimacy is additionally required.
Turkish Penal Code (TPC, Law No. 5237) – Article 282 (Laundering of assets derived from crime)
(1) Any person who transfers abroad asset values derived from an offence requiring a minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment or more, or subjects them to various transactions with the intention of concealing their illegitimate source or creating the impression that they were obtained by legitimate means, shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three years to seven years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days.
(2) Any person who, without participating in the commission of the offence in the first paragraph, purchases, accepts, possesses or uses the asset value constituting the subject of that offence, knowing this characteristic, shall be sentenced to imprisonment from two years to five years.
(3) Where this offence is committed by a public official, or by a member of a certain profession in the course of practising that profession, the penalty of imprisonment to be imposed shall be increased by one half.
(4) Where this offence is committed within the framework of the activities of an organisation established for the purpose of committing offences, the penalty to be imposed shall be doubled.
(5) Security measures specific to legal persons shall be ordered against legal persons on account of the commission of this offence.
(6) No penalty shall be imposed, for the offence defined in this article, on a person who, before the commencement of the prosecution in respect of this offence, ensures the seizure of the asset values constituting the subject of the offence or facilitates their seizure by informing the competent authorities of their location.
The current text is also available on the Article 282 TPC page. The Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation defines the legal interest protected by the offence as follows:
"The legal interest protected in the offence of laundering assets derived from crime is the interest in the investigation and prosecution authorities' reaching the asset values obtained from predicate offences and thereby uncovering those offences and their perpetrators, thus securing the right to a fair trial, and the interest pertaining to the administration of justice; the victim of the offence is everyone who constitutes society."
Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2015/172, K. 2018/435, 16.10.2018
On this reasoning, the General Assembly held that the Ministry of Treasury and Finance could not join the laundering case as an intervening party and dismissed the objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Cassation. Taking the same approach, the 3rd Criminal Chamber also stated that the victim of the predicate offence does not suffer direct harm in respect of the laundering offence (E. 2024/4155, K. 2024/19482).
Must the predicate offence and the laundering transaction be shown concretely?
According to the approach of the Court of Cassation, yes: for a conviction, it must be shown beyond doubt from which predicate offence the money derives and through which transaction it was laundered. In the light of this criterion, an abstract finding based solely on an increase in assets may not be regarded as sufficient. The Court of Cassation reversed a conviction rendered without determining which transactions the money, accepted as having been obtained from theft, had been passed through:
"…although it was accepted that the defendant subjected the income or asset values obtained from theft, the predicate offence, to laundering transactions, the rendering of a conviction solely on the basis of an abstract finding … without specifying, in a manner leaving no room for doubt, to which types of transactions they were subjected in this respect, and without making any determination or assessment on this matter…"
Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/13443, K. 2024/1696, 07.02.2024 (the conviction rendered by the regional court of appeal was reversed)
Is the person who committed the predicate offence also liable for laundering?
Possibly; however, buying property with proceeds of crime and merely keeping it has not in itself been regarded as laundering. The 3rd Criminal Chamber concluded that the defendant's buying a car with proceeds of crime and "merely keeping it in his own possession would not constitute the imputed offence, but that its confiscation could be ordered if the conditions are met"; with regard to the property allegedly transferred to relatives, it found the word "probably" in the MASAK report insufficient and required an expert examination (E. 2024/4155, K. 2024/19482, 19.12.2024, reversal). By contrast, the 11th Criminal Chamber found no error in the laundering conviction of a defendant who had placed money obtained through breach of trust by reason of service in accounts held in his own name and in the names of family members and had bought property with it; since the acts were not committed in the course of practising a profession, it corrected the judgment by removing only the increase under Article 282(3) (E. 2022/10832, K. 2025/111, 06.01.2025).
What is the penalty for the money laundering offence?
The first paragraph provides for imprisonment from three to seven years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days; the second paragraph provides only for imprisonment from two to five years. The other situations are summarised in the table.
| Situation | Legal basis | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer abroad, or transactions aimed at concealing the source | Art. 282(1) TPC | 3–7 years' imprisonment and a judicial fine of up to 20,000 days |
| Knowingly purchasing, accepting, possessing or using proceeds of crime | Art. 282(2) TPC | 2–5 years' imprisonment |
| Commission by a public official, or by a professional in the course of practising the profession | Art. 282(3) TPC | Imprisonment is increased by one half |
| Commission within the framework of the activities of a criminal organisation | Art. 282(4) TPC | The penalty is doubled |
| Commission for the benefit of a legal person | Arts. 282(5), 60 TPC; Art. 43/A of the Law on Misdemeanours | Revocation of licence, confiscation; administrative fine (TRY 10,000 – TRY 50 million in the statutory text, subject to annual revaluation; may not be less than twice the benefit) |
| Ensuring the seizure of the value before the prosecution | Art. 282(6) TPC | No penalty is imposed for the laundering offence |
Legal persons: Under Article 20(2) TPC, penalties are not imposed on legal persons; instead, the security measures provided by law are applied. Article 60 TPC provides for the revocation of the licence in the event of a conviction for an intentional offence committed for the benefit of a company operating under a licence granted by a public authority, with the participation of its organs or representatives and through abuse of the authority conferred by that licence, and for confiscation in respect of offences committed for the benefit of a private-law legal person; where the consequences would be disproportionately severe in relation to the act, the judge may decide not to order them. Article 43/A of the Law on Misdemeanours (Kabahatler Kanunu, Law No. 5326), for its part, provides that where the laundering offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person by one of its organs or representatives or by a person acting within its organisation, an administrative fine is additionally imposed on the company; the statutory amounts are applied after being increased each year by the revaluation rate pursuant to Article 17(7) of the Law on Misdemeanours.
Effective repentance: Exemption from penalty depends on the seizure of the value being ensured before the prosecution commences, that is, before the indictment is accepted (Article 2(1)(f) CCP). The provision concerns only the laundering offence; the outcome with regard to the predicate offence is determined according to the provisions applicable to that offence.
Amendment history: The current first and second paragraphs entered into force on 9 July 2009 by Article 5 of Law No. 5918. In the former text quoted in the above decision of the Criminal General Assembly, the minimum penalty threshold for the predicate offence was one year, the penalty was imprisonment from two to five years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days, the purposes of concealment and creating an impression were required cumulatively through the conjunction "and", and today's Article 282(2) did not exist. For acts committed before that date, a comparison to determine the more favourable law is carried out pursuant to Article 7(2) TPC.
I accepted money without knowing: when does Article 282(2) TPC apply?
Article 282(2) TPC punishes a person who, without participating in the laundering, purchases, accepts, possesses or uses proceeds of crime; however, the person must know that the value is derived from crime. Acceptance without such knowledge does not constitute an offence under this paragraph. Owing to the words "without participating", the paragraph does not apply to a person who participated in the laundering offence under the first paragraph.
The element of knowledge is assessed through facts such as the nature of the relationship, an unusual amount, the payment arriving via third parties, and correspondence. In situations such as intra-family transfers or gifts, documenting the reason for the transaction is central to the defence.
Article 282(2) must be distinguished from the offence of "purchasing or accepting property derived from crime" under Article 165 TPC. Article 165 TPC provides for imprisonment from six months to three years and a judicial fine of up to ten thousand days for a person who, without participating in an offence, sells, transfers, purchases or accepts property or other asset value obtained through that offence. The 15th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation reversed a conviction under Article 282(2) of a defendant who had purchased a hay baling machine obtained unlawfully, knowing this characteristic, on the ground that the act fell within the scope of Article 165 TPC (E. 2017/10979, K. 2020/21, 13.01.2020).
Do letting others use an account, fraud and illegal betting proceeds count as laundering?
Not always. In Court of Cassation decisions, the position of a person who lets another use his or her bank account or IBAN may, before laundering, also be examined in terms of participation in, or assistance to, the predicate offence, for example fraud. For instance, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, stating that the defendant who had provided his account number knowing that an offence would be committed had taken part in aggravated fraud as an accessory within the scope of Article 39(2)(c) TPC, reversed the judgment rendered against him as a principal (E. 2023/2909, K. 2023/6665, 28.09.2023). The account renting defence is discussed in the article on the real user of an account.
An allegation of laundering, on the other hand, arises where the money is moved through different accounts, crypto assets or property acquired in the names of relatives in order to conceal its source. As a predicate offence, fraud committed through the use of information systems is one of the most frequently encountered examples.
In illegal betting files, a violation of Law No. 7258 on Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sports may be cited as the predicate offence; the penalties for betting offences are discussed in the article on illegal betting penalties. Here too, it must be separately investigated through which transaction the betting proceeds were laundered:
"…without taking into account that it should be investigated to which transaction or transactions, and of which dates, the asset values deriving from the offence of violating Law No. 7258 and forming the subject of the case were subjected with the intention of concealing their illegitimate source and creating the impression that they were obtained by legitimate means, or whether they were otherwise taken abroad, and that the legal situation of the defendants should be assessed according to the outcome…"
Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E. 2021/3543, K. 2022/10260, 01.12.2022 (the laundering convictions were reversed)
In the same decision, the Chamber stated that the act of the defendants who were caught while trying to take EUR 30,000 of betting proceeds abroad remained at the stage of attempt, and held that the Spor Toto Organisation Presidency (Spor Toto Teşkilatı Başkanlığı) could not join the case as an intervening party in respect of laundering.
How does the MASAK process work: reporting, postponement and examination
One of the main sources of information for MASAK (Financial Crimes Investigation Board) is the suspicious transaction reports (STRs) filed by obliged parties. Those operating in banking, insurance, capital markets and other financial services and in games of chance and betting, those engaged in foreign exchange and real estate trading, notaries and the other obliged parties listed in Article 2(1)(d) of Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime are required to report to the Presidency where there is "any information, suspicion or matter requiring suspicion" that the asset subject to the transaction has been obtained illegally (Article 4(1)). The report is made within ten working days at the latest from the date on which the suspicion arose, irrespective of the amount (Regulation on Measures, Articles 27-28).
The report is confidential: the obliged party may not disclose that a report has been made to anyone, including the parties to the transaction, other than the inspectors responsible for compliance supervision and the courts during proceedings (Article 4(2)). A person who violates this prohibition faces imprisonment from one to three years and a judicial fine of up to five thousand days (Article 14(1)). For this reason, it is normal for a bank branch not to give a clear answer to the question "why". A bank's refusal of a transaction where it cannot carry out customer identification or cannot ascertain the purpose of the business relationship, by contrast, rests on a separate basis, Article 22 of the Regulation on Measures.
| Measure | Decided by | Duration | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postponement of the transaction (suspension or refusal of permission) | Minister (may delegate to a deputy minister) | 7 working days | Art. 19/A of Law No. 5549 |
| Laundering offence examination | Inspector assigned at MASAK's request | 6 months from the start of the assignment; additional time may be granted | Art. 7 of the Regulation on Laundering Offence Examination |
| Seizure of assets | Judge; where delay is prejudicial, the public prosecutor (judicial approval within 24 hours) | A valuation report is obtained within 3 months | Art. 17 of Law No. 5549; procedure of Art. 128 CCP |
| Suspension of the account (only Arts. 142(2)(e), 158(1)(f) and (l), 245 TPC) | Bank, payment or crypto asset service provider | Up to 48 hours | Art. 128/A CCP |
Postponement of the transaction: Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 authorises the Minister to suspend, for seven working days, or not to permit the execution of, a transaction suspected of being linked to laundering or the financing of terrorism. Under the Postponement Regulation, in reports with a request for postponement, the postponement may not exceed seven working days from the date of the obliged party's report; for assets identified by the Presidency, the period is seven working days from the notification of the decision to the obliged party (Articles 4(3), 5). For a restriction exceeding this period, another legal basis (a seizure order, the bank's refusal of the transaction) should be investigated.
Examination and seizure: A MASAK examination begins on the basis of its own findings or at the request of the public prosecutor; a report containing serious suspicion of the laundering offence is sent to the public prosecutor's office (Regulation on Laundering Offence Examination, Articles 4, 5, 15). Article 282 TPC is not included in the seizure catalogue in Article 128(2) CCP; the special legal basis for the seizure of assets in respect of the laundering offence is Article 17 of Law No. 5549, which permits seizure in accordance with the procedure in Article 128 CCP. The laundering offence is, however, listed in the catalogues of Articles 133 (appointment of a trustee to a company), 135 (identification of communications) and 140 (technical surveillance) CCP.
MASAK has blocked my account: what should I do first?
The first task is to find out which decision the restriction is based on; the time limit and the competent authority to apply to vary accordingly.
- Request the legal basis in writing: Ask the bank by petition for the date and amount of the restriction and whether it is based on a judicial decision or on the bank's own decision. The bank cannot disclose a suspicious transaction report, but it knows which authority issued the decision it is enforcing.
- Calculate the time limit: A postponement under Article 19/A lasts seven working days, and a suspension under Article 128/A CCP lasts up to 48 hours. If the restriction continues after these periods have expired, another basis, such as a seizure order or the bank's refusal of the transaction, should be investigated.
- Identify the investigation file: Find out the investigation number of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office investigation in which the seizure order was issued and the judgeship that issued the order.
- Document the source of the money: Gather documents showing from whom and why each incoming payment was received.
- Do not carry out new transactions: Transferring an amount of uncertain source to other accounts or converting it into cash gives rise to new suspicion.
- Use the correct remedy: For an objection to a seizure order and a request for its lifting, see the article on seizure and third parties; for the 48-hour suspension and applying to the public prosecutor's office, see the article on Article 128/A CCP.
- Go to your statement prepared: If you have been summoned as a suspect, review the MASAK report and account statements in advance with your defence counsel.
How does a laundering suspect build a defence, and which documents are needed?
The defence is built by questioning whether each element has been proven separately: Is the predicate offence specified? Do the assets derive from that offence? Was the acquisition before or after the predicate offence? Does the transaction carry a purpose of concealment? Does the suspect know this? As seen in the decisions above, convictions that do not give concrete answers to these questions may be reversed.
- ✓All bank, payment institution and crypto exchange account statements covering the relevant period
- ✓Income documents: payslips, social security (SGK) service record, tax registration certificate, tax returns, invoices
- ✓For purchases of immovable property and vehicles, receipts and contracts showing the source of the payment
- ✓Documents relating to loans, debts, inheritance, donations or sale proceeds
- ✓Correspondence with the persons who sent or received money and records showing the commercial relationship
- ✓The notified copies of the MASAK report, the expert report and the seizure order
- ✓A timeline comparing the transaction dates with the dates of the alleged predicate offence
Exceptions and common mistakes
- Taking every restriction for a "MASAK block": Postponement, suspension under Article 128/A CCP, seizure and the bank's refusal of a transaction based on Article 22 of the Regulation are different mechanisms; an application to the wrong authority wastes time.
- An undocumented "I did not know" defence: Under Article 282(2), the element of knowledge is decisive, but this defence gains strength when the relationship and the income are documented.
- Transferring property to relatives while the investigation is ongoing: Such transfers may be assessed in MASAK reports as transactions concealing the source.
- Failing to disclose a transaction carried out on behalf of another: A person who, in a transaction requiring customer identification, does not notify the obliged party in writing that he or she is acting on behalf of another faces imprisonment from six months to one year or a judicial fine of up to five thousand days under Article 15 of Law No. 5549.
- Missing the moment for effective repentance: Article 282(6) does not apply after the indictment has been accepted.
- Overlooking the more favourable law for older acts: For acts committed before 9 July 2009, the former and current texts must be compared.
Important: This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. In laundering files, the nature of the predicate offence, the transaction dates and the type of measure applied directly affect the outcome; each specific file must be assessed on the basis of its own documents.
Investigation and Defence Process with an Istanbul Money Laundering Lawyer
In laundering investigations, the course of the file is often determined by three points: whether the predicate offence has been concretely shown, the link between the asset acquisitions and the predicate offence in terms of date and source, and whether the measure applied to the accounts rests on the correct legal basis. Av. Coşkun Genç Law Office provides legal support in laundering, illegal betting and cyber fraud investigations conducted in Istanbul, in preparing for statements, in submissions against MASAK and expert reports, in objections to seizure orders and at the prosecution stages. In the work carried out as an Istanbul money laundering lawyer, account statements and income documents are examined together.
Persons wishing to obtain support from an Istanbul economic crimes lawyer may request a preliminary assessment with the bank letter, seizure order, summons to give a statement, account statements and income documents. The office's contact details are available on the contact page; the office's areas of work are set out on the cybercrimes page.
Sources
- Turkish Penal Code (TPC, Law No. 5237), Arts. 7, 20, 60, 165, 282 – mevzuat.gov.tr
- Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime, Arts. 2, 4, 14, 15, 17, 19/A, 26 – mevzuat.gov.tr
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP, Law No. 5271), Arts. 2, 128, 128/A, 133, 135, 140 – mevzuat.gov.tr
- Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanours, Arts. 17, 43/A – mevzuat.gov.tr
- Regulation on Measures Regarding the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime and Financing of Terrorism, Arts. 22, 27, 28 – mevzuat.gov.tr
- Regulation on the Postponement of Transactions within the Scope of the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime and Financing of Terrorism, Arts. 4, 5 – mevzuat.gov.tr
- Regulation on Laundering Offence Examination, Arts. 4, 5, 7, 11, 15 – mevzuat.gov.tr
- Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) – masak.hmb.gov.tr
- Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2015/172, K. 2018/435, 16.10.2018 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/13443, K. 2024/1696, 07.02.2024 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E. 2024/4155, K. 2024/19482, 19.12.2024 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, E. 2022/10832, K. 2025/111, 06.01.2025 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 15th Criminal Chamber, E. 2017/10979, K. 2020/21, 13.01.2020 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/2909, K. 2023/6665, 28.09.2023 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, E. 2021/3543, K. 2022/10260, 01.12.2022 – mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr