In this article
Updated 13 September 2026
You may have let a friend use your account to receive money, shared banking details when applying for a job, or transferred incoming funds to another account for a commission. Later being told the money came from fraud can lead to a serious investigation. But the mere fact that the account is in your name is not conclusive proof that you knowingly committed fraud. The assessment depends on how the account was used, what you knew, and the purpose for which you took part in the transactions. 11
This article explains what information account holders called for questioning should gather and how criminal liability is assessed. It also discusses the account suspension measure introduced in late 2025 and the sentence-reduction provision of July 2026. For foreign nationals, interpreter needs and separate proceedings that may affect residence status also warrant attention.
The difference between sharing an IBAN and allowing use of an account
Giving an IBAN to receive a sale price or wages is ordinary daily conduct. Collecting another person’s funds in one’s account, handing over a bank card, or sharing a mobile banking password or verification codes carries a different risk. Such acts may prompt investigation of the account’s actual use and who directed transactions. The review concerns not only the named IBAN holder but also who controlled the account.
For example, a genuine seller receiving payment for goods is not in the same position as someone transferring funds from complete strangers for commission. Even in the latter example, however, the legal result cannot be determined from this short description alone. Communications, the nature of the work, fund flows, and the person’s explanations are assessed together. Breach of a banking agreement and knowing participation in fraud are separate issues. 11
Why knowledge of the offense matters
Fraud is assessed through deceptive conduct that misleads a person and causes loss and wrongful gain. Liability of someone who lets an account be used, whether as perpetrator or aider, requires their own conduct to be assessed under the offense elements and participation rules. The provisions of the Turkish Penal Code on intent, mistake, and participation are therefore decisive. Account ownership alone does not create automatic liability for another person’s offense. 11
Conversely, “my friend asked, so I gave it” is not sufficient as a defense in every case. Investigators examine the history of the friendship, whether the described work was real, number of transactions, commission, and discussions of the funds’ source. If evidence shows knowing assistance to a fraudulent scheme, not having spoken directly to the victim does not alone remove liability.
Evidence shows the difference between genuinely being deceived and later saying “I did not know.” A job advertisement, interview records, a document presented as an employment contract, and the account requester’s explanations are important. Rather than invent a new narrative for the defense, preserve original records showing what was known and said at the time of the transactions.
Which actions are examined in the case file
The date and time funds entered the account, the account to which they were then transferred, any cash withdrawals, and the devices used to conduct transactions may be examined. Authorized bodies can request bank records, ATM images, and technical data. If someone else is said to have held the account, it is important to explain when and how access was given. The closing balance alone may not reveal the whole flow of funds.
A statement that the person kept no money is relevant but does not by itself prove innocence. Knowing assistance intended to benefit someone else is legally relevant too. Conversely, money entering an account does not automatically show that its holder knew it represented criminal proceeds. Categorical statements detached from the particular facts should be avoided in either direction. 11
Changing phones, deleting messages, or coordinating stories with the person who used the account does not strengthen a defense. Lost records may include information favorable to the person. Preserving relevant messages with dates and party details, and raising matters requiring technical examination in the case through a lawyer, is a sounder approach.
Scope of the sentence reduction introduced in 2026
Law No. 7589, published on 31 July 2026, added a new fourth paragraph to Article 158 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Subject to other conditions, it provides for a one-half reduction of the sentence imposed on persons whose participation in an offense under Articles 157 or 158 TCK is confined to providing someone else with specified payment instruments or the necessary information and tools to use an account. An aim to obtain unjust benefit for oneself or another is also an element of the provision. 2, 32,3
The rule does not say that every sharing of an IBAN is criminal: the existence of an offense and the person’s participation must be established first. Nor can it be said that everyone directing a fraud, deceiving a victim, or taking a wider role qualifies for the reduction. Whether participation was limited to the statutory conduct is assessed from what actually happened in the case. A defense of innocence and, if its conditions are met, a request for a reduction are distinct legal issues.
The new law’s effect on pending or final cases must be examined according to the case stage. A temporary provision also addresses remedies and enforcement in certain cases. An earlier judgment therefore does not make examination of the new rule unnecessary; nevertheless, automatic release or the same final sentence for everyone cannot be promised. 22
What blocking an account means
Without identifying the legal basis of the restriction, one should not claim that an account “will certainly reopen after forty-eight hours.” Article 128/A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) permits a financial institution to suspend an account for up to forty-eight hours where there is reasonable suspicion of specified cyber-related offenses. This is not a universal duration for all bank blocks. If there has been seizure or another legal measure, its conditions require separate review. 44
Suspension does not amount to a final conviction. An application to the chief public prosecutor’s office is available to seek its removal. The account holder should ask the bank what type of action was taken and obtain notification details, then identify any prosecutor’s case file. Rather than try to move suspected criminal funds to another account, preserve records and follow the actions of competent authorities.
Anyone who believes their account was accessed without authority should promptly notify the bank and take security measures. But because the timing of the notification relative to the disputed transactions will be examined, any earlier sharing of access must be described honestly. Changing a password later does not by itself explain how past transactions occurred.
Does returning the money close the case?
Remedying the victim’s loss may matter under effective-remorse rules if their conditions are met. The timing and extent of payment and whose loss is remedied are assessed. Returning money does not necessarily end an investigation or trial. Partial payment and full compensation may also have different effects. If a payment is made, the correct victim, file, and amount should be identified and the payment documented. 11
A temporary provision of Law No. 7589 also contains a limited enforcement rule. For persons within the new reduction whose earlier sentences are in the enforcement stage and to whom Article 168 TCK was not previously applied, it allows effective remorse upon full compensation within six months from a court warning. These six months are not a general period starting on the law’s publication for everyone. Nor does this specific route provide for postponement or suspension of enforcement until full payment. 2, 32,3
Preparing a foreign national called for questioning
A person who does not sufficiently understand Turkish should clearly state their need for an interpreter. Misunderstanding a figure, date, or transfer description in an account statement may affect the defense. A person questioned as a suspect has rights to a lawyer and not to explain the alleged offense. Identity details must nevertheless be given correctly. The record should not be signed without understanding its content; corrections should be requested if it is wrong. 5, 65,6
To prepare, gather bank statements, information showing who held the card, job advertisements, payment descriptions, and all messages. An explanation of each transaction can be written beside it; an unknown transaction should not be filled in with a guess. If saying “I did not have the card that day,” identify the basis; if saying “I expected payment for work,” explain what the work was.
If cases may exist in several cities, track each file number, transaction date, and notification separately. An explanation given in one investigation should not be assumed to resolve all other cases automatically. Keeping address and contact details current helps prevent missed summonses and decisions.
Practical conclusion
In a case about allowing account use, the central question is what the person did, with what knowledge and purpose. Neither “accepting everything” without understanding the accusation nor claiming the account was held by someone else without evidence is a sound response. First examine the file and money flow and preserve favorable records, then assess the defense and any application of the new statute.
If separate residence or deportation proceedings arise for a foreign national alongside the criminal case, they must be followed independently. Opening a criminal investigation does not automatically result in deportation, just as release in the criminal case does not cancel all immigration proceedings. The legal basis and remedy for each decision must be examined separately. 7, 87,8
Sources
Sources checked on 13 September 2026. Numbers in the text refer to the sources below.
[1] 5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu. In particular Articles 20–21, 30, 37–39, 59, 73, 80, 106–107, 132–134, 157–158, 168, and 204–207. KS Law legislative text Access source
[2] Law No. 7589. Adopted 16 July 2026; Official Gazette 31 July 2026, issue 33326. In particular Articles 13 and 15, temporary Article 1/6–7, and Article 26 on commencement. Text adopted by TBMM Access source
[3] Law No. 7589. LEXPERA Official Gazette text. Comparative check of Article 158/4 TCK and transitional provisions Access source
[4] Amendments made by Law No. 7571. Union of Municipalities of Türkiye comparative text, pp. 17–18. Account suspension and seizure under Article 128/A CMK Access source
[5] 5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu. In particular Articles 48, 91, 95, 100–101, 109, 147–150, 154, 158, 202, 234, and 324 Access source
[6] Ministry of Justice. Adli Yardım Bilgilendirme Sayfası. Foreign nationals’ criminal-procedure rights and interpreter costs Access source
[7] 6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu. In particular Articles 4, 46, 48–49, and 52–59. Copy of the Legislative Information System text published by ODTÜ Access source
[8] Presidency of Migration Management. Sınır Dışı Etme. Decisions, judicial remedies, administrative detention, and periods Access source