Decision of Non-Prosecution in P2P Fraud Investigation: Is USDT Sale Complicity in a Crime?

Does the mere fact that funds are sent to a bank account by a victim of fraud constitute criminal liability for an individual facing fraud accusations due to P2P cryptocurrency transactions? In an investigation conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, this question was examined by jointly evaluating concrete bank transactions, suspect defenses, and the conditions for complicity in the crime of fraud.

The Bureau of Forgery and Fraud of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, in its file dated September 29, 2026, numbered 2024/139219 Investigation and 2026/108091 Decision , issued a decision of non-prosecution concerning a total of 12 suspects, including individuals who stated that they conducted crypto-asset sales via the P2P method.

Our client, whose legal defense was undertaken by ‘ during the investigation, also faced fraud accusations due to P2P transactions. During the investigation process, emphasis was placed on the legal nature of P2P transactions, the significance of bank transfers, and the evidence required to substantiate the allegation of complicity in the crime of fraud; defense efforts were carried out to clarify our client's legal status. Atty. Batın YILMAZ‘s client has also faced fraud charges due to P2P transactions. During the investigation process, emphasis was placed on the legal nature of P2P transactions, the meaning of bank transfers, and the evidence required to support the allegation of complicity in the crime of fraud; defense efforts were carried out to clarify our client's legal status.

The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office concluded at the end of the investigation that the mere fact that money was transferred to bank accounts is insufficient to prove the intent to participate in the crime of fraud. A public lawsuit was not filed on the grounds that no prior agreement, joint intent to act, or sufficient communication and contact records demonstrating complicity could be established between the suspects and the unidentified primary perpetrators.

Legal significance of the decision: The receipt of funds in a bank account from a victim of fraud and the account holder knowingly and intentionally committing the crime of fraud are distinct phenomena. The determination of criminal liability in P2P transactions depends not solely on the existence of a money transfer, but on the economic and technical nature of the transaction, the account holder's knowledge, intent, and concrete evidence.

Summary of the Decision of Non-Prosecution Rendered in the P2P Fraud Investigation

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

The scope of the decision must be understood correctly. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office examined the complainant's allegation of fraud and money transfers; however, it concluded that a relationship establishing criminal liability could not be demonstrated with sufficient evidence between the account holders in the investigation and the individuals evaluated as having perpetrated the actual fraud.

Therefore, the rendered decision is not a court acquittal, but rather a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) rendered at the investigation stage.

The Specific Case: The Promise of Earning Money Through TikTok Tasks and Cryptocurrency Transfers

The investigation commenced upon a person's report that they were contacted via the WhatsApp application and directed with the promise of earning money.

According to the complainant's statement, they were contacted by a foreign telephone number and informed that they could earn income by performing advertising or like tasks on the TikTok application.

Believing these promises, the complainant opened an account via the provided website and began operations. Subsequently, under the pretext that the earnings would be transferred as cryptocurrency, they were requested to create an account on the OKX TR platform.

The complainant was told that upon making various payments, the deposited amounts would be sent to their account as USDT.

Upon this, the complainant transferred funds to five different bank accounts between June 9 and June 13, 2024, thereby completing the transactions.

However, the promised crypto assets were not transferred to their account, and their connection with the individuals they communicated with was severed.

Upon the complaint of the aggrieved party stating that they were defrauded, an investigation was initiated by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.

Examination of Money Transfers and Identification of Suspects

Within the scope of the investigation, the bank accounts to which the complainant directly transferred funds, as well as the accounts to which secondary transfers were made from these accounts, were investigated.

As a result of the examinations conducted on bank records, the identification information of a total of 12 individuals was determined.

The defenses of the suspects were taken, and their bank account activity records were obtained.

At the initial stage, some of the account holders who received funds stated that they did not know the complainant or the perpetrators of the fraud, that they were conducting P2P transactions on crypto-asset platforms, and that the amounts deposited into their accounts represented the Turkish lira equivalent of the USDT they had sold.

At this stage, the fundamental question in the criminal investigation, rather than whether the money transfers actually took place, has been whether the account holders knowingly participated in the crime of fraud .

What is a P2P Cryptocurrency Transaction?

P2P is an abbreviation for the English term Peer-to-Peer . In Turkish, it means peer-to-peer transaction.

In the crypto-asset market, P2P is one of the transaction models where a buyer and a seller buy and sell crypto assets directly with each other through a platform.

For instance, a person holding USDT may wish to sell this crypto asset in exchange for Turkish lira.

The buyer and seller initiate the transaction through the relevant platform. Upon payment by the buyer and fulfillment of the transaction conditions, the transfer or release of the crypto asset may take place.

Depending on the technical operation of the platform, the payment between the buyer and the seller can be made via bank transfer or another supported method.

However, conducting P2P transactions in this manner does not mean that the transaction is lawful in every case or that it is exempt from obligations regarding crypto-asset service providers.

Regulations applicable to crypto asset service providers, including identity verification, transaction monitoring, transfer limitations, and suspicious transaction reports, must be evaluated separately.

In this regard, the Crypto Asset Service Providers Guide published by MASAKcontains important explanations regarding financial transactions and the prevention of laundering proceeds of crime.

How is USDT Sold via P2P?

In a typical P2P sale, the following stages may take place:

1. The crypto asset owner creates a sales order through the platform.
2. The buyer submits a purchase request via the sales listing or a matching transaction.
3. Payment details are transmitted to the buyer in accordance with the platform's transaction terms.
4. The Turkish lira payment is executed by the buyer.
5. The seller verifies that the payment has been received.
6. If the transaction terms have been fulfilled, the crypto asset is transferred or released to the buyer.

In this process, it may be significant whether the buyer, the seller, and the person transferring funds to the bank account are the same individual.

Payments made by third parties, in particular, may necessitate investigating the true nature of the specific transaction.

How Does the P2P Triangular Fraud Method Work?

In the decision of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, in order to clarify the incident, triangular fraud or P2P fraud methods have been included.

In this method, the perpetrator communicates with the victim on one hand, while initiating a P2P purchase transaction on a crypto-asset platform on the other.

Instead of having funds deposited into their own bank account, the fraudster may arrange for payment to be made to the bank account of the P2P seller.

First Party: Victim of Fraud

The victim believes in the promises of tasks, investments, shopping, or earnings presented to them.

When they transfer money to the bank account directed by the fraudster, they believe the payment is being used for the promised transaction.

However, the funds may have reached the account of a P2P seller whom the victim does not know.

Second Party: P2P Seller

The P2P seller may have created a transaction to sell crypto assets via the platform.

Upon arrival of the designated amount to the seller's bank account, the seller may consider this as the proceeds of the crypto asset sale executed.

Depending on the transaction terms, the seller may release the crypto asset to the buyer's account.

However, the seller may not know that the payment was actually sent by a fraud victim or that the transaction was manipulated by third parties.

Third Party: The Perpetrator of the Fraud

The perpetrator of the fraud may cause the victim to send the funds directly to the P2P seller's account.

Consequently, the bank transfer may have been directed from the victim to the P2P seller, while the crypto asset transfer may have been directed to an account controlled by the fraudster, depending on the transaction terms.

In this method, the use of the P2P seller's bank account for the wire transfer does not automatically indicate that the seller had a prior agreement with the fraudulent organization.

Nevertheless, it cannot be presumed that the P2P seller acted in good faith in every circumstance.

In the event of conducting a transaction with knowledge that a crime has been committed, knowingly allowing the account to be used by a criminal organization, or aiding and abetting the fraud, criminal liability may additionally arise.

How Was Triangular Fraud Evaluated in the Prosecutor's Decision?

The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office has evaluated the complainant's statement, the suspect's defenses, and the bank account records collectively.

The decision states that unidentified individuals using foreign mobile lines deceived the aggrieved party, and that the aggrieved party transferred the funds directly to the suspects' bank accounts.

Conversely, it was explained that the suspects' defense—claiming that the funds transferred to their accounts were proceeds from crypto-asset sales conducted via the P2P method—aligns with current financial fraud methods.

The prosecutor's office also determined that there was insufficient communication records and evidence of agreement to show that the suspects acted in concert with each other or with the primary perpetrators.

Consequently, the mere fact that funds were deposited into bank accounts was not deemed sufficient to prove the intent to participate in the crime of fraud.

This assessment is crucial with respect to investigating the individual criminal liabilities of the suspects.

Is It a Crime to Receive Funds from a Fraud Victim in a Bank Account?

The transfer of funds from a fraud victim to a person's bank account is a significant circumstance for the investigation; however, this circumstance alone does not prove that the account holder committed the crime of fraud.

Criminal liability is determined not by the existence of an account or the deposit of funds into it, but rather by the individual's concrete act and the statutory elements of the crime.

Fraud is regulated under Article 157 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 within the scope of deceiving a person through fraudulent behavior and thereby securing an unjust benefit to the detriment of the victim or another party.

The qualified forms of fraud are set forth in Article 158 of the same Code.

The accusation in the investigated case is in the nature of fraud committed by means of utilizing information systems, banks, or credit institutions as instruments .

However, for this accusation to be brought against a bank account holder, their connection to the fraudulent act must be evaluated separately.

Relevant provisions in the official text of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 are set forth.

Under What Circumstances Can a Bank Account Holder Be Held Liable?

The criminal liability of a bank account holder may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

For instance, a person knowingly making their bank account available to others for fraudulent purposes, knowingly aiding and abetting the commission of the crime, or participating jointly in the fraudulent act may give rise to different legal consequences.

Conversely, the situation cannot be evaluated in the same manner for a person who believes that a payment was made to their account within the scope of a genuine sales transaction and who cannot be shown to have a connection to the fraud organization.

In the examined file, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor did not consider the presence of money transfers linked to fraud to be sufficient; it evaluated whether other evidence supporting complicity and intent to participate existed.

Elements of the Crime of Fraud Within the Scope of TCK Articles 157 and 158

The crime of fraud is not constituted merely by the occurrence of a loss in a person's assets.

The material and mental elements of the crime must also be present.

Fraudulent Conduct

In the crime of fraud, it is essential that the perpetrator engages in fraudulent conduct capable of deceiving the victim.

In the specific investigation, the promise made to the aggrieved party via TikTok to earn money by performing tasks and directing them to various payments was evaluated within the scope of the fraudulent process examined by the public prosecutor's office.

However, by whom these promises were made and whether the suspects receiving payments into their bank accounts were aware of these promises are separate issues.

Deception of the Victim and Property Loss

In the crime of fraud, it is important that the victim is deceived through fraudulent conduct and that a loss occurs in terms of assets.

The fact that the aggrieved party sent money and failed to receive the promised return are among the events forming the basis of the investigation.

However, the realization of victimization does not automatically require all account holders in the investigation to be held liable for this crime.

Unjust Benefit and Intent

The mental element of the crime of fraud is intent.

It is required that the person knowingly and willingly carries out the fraudulent conduct, the process of deception, and obtaining an unjust benefit, or that the conditions for complicity in the crime are met.

In P2P transactions, legal issues often arise at this point.

Because funds may have been deposited into the seller's account; however, it must be further investigated whether this person knew about the fraudulent promises and whether they acted in concert with the perpetrators of the fraud.

How to Prove Complicity in the Crime of Fraud?

Complicity in the crime of fraud does not arise merely from taking part in the same economic transaction chain.

Articles 37, 38, 39, and 40 of the Turkish Penal Code govern the provisions regarding perpetration, instigation, aiding and abetting, and liability for complicity.

When determining whether a person participated in the crime of fraud as a co-perpetrator or an aider, the individual's knowledge, intent regarding the commission of the crime, and contribution to the act are evaluated.

In the specific P2P investigation, the following questions were of significance:

• Was there a prior agreement among the suspects?
• Were the suspects in communication with the primary perpetrators of the fraud?
• Were the bank accounts knowingly used for fraudulent purposes?
• Were there any records demonstrating the suspects' intent to act in concert?
• Could the money transfers have been in exchange for legitimate P2P transactions?
• Was there any other evidence indicating that the suspects had knowledge of the fraudulent activity?

The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor evaluated the investigation file within the framework of these headings and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the intent of complicity.

The primary significance of the decision is that the use of a bank account is not deemed equivalent to the existence of intent to participate in the crime.

Which Evidence Can Be Examined in Cryptocurrency Fraud Investigations?

Criminal investigations involving crypto assets may require technical analysis due to the simultaneous execution of traditional bank transfers and digital platform transactions.

Depending on the specifics of the case, the following evidence may be of significance:

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

However, it is not claimed that all documents specified in this table are present in the investigated investigation file.

The primary evidence explicitly stated in the shared prosecutor's decision consists of the complainant's statement, the suspect's defenses, and bank account movements.

Crypto asset platform transaction history, transfer records, and other digital evidence are types of documents that can be evaluated in terms of clarifying the incident in investigations of a similar nature.

Matching Bank Transfer with P2P Transaction

In similar disputes, it may be important to determine which P2P transaction corresponds to the payment received in the bank account.

For example, it can be investigated whether there is consistency among the payment date, amount, P2P order number, and the transfer time of the crypto asset.

However, the matching of a money transfer with a transaction on the platform does not, in and of itself, constitute conclusive proof that no crime has been committed or that the account holder acted in good faith.

This match is a material piece of evidence that must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence.

The Importance of Defense Counsel Activities During the Investigation Phase

In criminal investigations, defense counsel activities are not limited solely to attending the suspect's interrogation.

Particularly in criminal accusations involving information systems, banking transactions, and crypto assets, a distinction must be made between the technical and economic aspects of the incident and its significance under criminal law.

In this investigation, where legal defense was conducted by Atty. Batın YILMAZ, defense efforts were carried out to evaluate the legal status of our client, who was suspected of fraud due to P2P transactions.

Within the legal framework of these efforts, emphasis was placed on distinguishing the nature of the payment received in the bank account from the allegation of complicity in the crime of fraud, evaluating the requisite intent for complicity, and examining the investigation evidence in a holistic manner.

It is particularly important to note that a money transfer alone does not imply the existence of a criminal partnership between the perpetrator and the suspect.

In such cases, the collection of evidence for and against the suspect and the investigation of the material truth are fundamental requirements of criminal procedure.

Pursuant to Article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Public Prosecutor is obligated to investigate evidence both in favor of and against the suspect during the investigation and to protect the suspect's rights.

The relevant regulations and provisions concerning the investigation procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 are set forth.

The general scope of our firm's practice in criminal investigation and prosecution is explained on our page regarding criminal law and defense proceedings .

Proper Legal Qualification of Financial Transactions Under Criminal Law

One of the most critical challenges in investigations connected to financial transactions is the accurate correlation of the material facts derived from transaction records with the elements of the crime.

The transfer of funds to a bank account is a material fact.

The defense that this payment constitutes consideration for a genuine crypto-asset sale is a separate assertion.

Conversely, the accusation that the account holder knowingly perpetrated fraud or aided and abetted the crime requires a distinct legal assessment.

Conflating these three stages can lead to erroneous conclusions in determining criminal liability.

In the specific investigation, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor evaluated the bank transfers and the suspects' statements regarding P2P transactions collectively.

Why Did the Public Prosecutor's Office Issue a Decision of Non-Prosecution?

In its decision dated September 29, 2026, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office evaluated all essential facts in the case file comprehensively.

While acknowledging that the complainant transferred funds to the accounts, the Prosecutor's Office stated that the account holders' defenses regarding P2P transactions aligned with the ordinary course of life and current financial fraud methods.

It was also noted that there were no sufficient communication records demonstrating that the suspects acted in concert among themselves or with the main fraud perpetrators.

The reasoning of the decision includes the following statement:

…the mere fact that money was transferred to bank accounts by the aggrieved party is not sufficient on its own to prove the intent to participate in the crime of fraud…

As a result of this assessment, the public prosecutor's office concluded that the legal elements of the alleged crime of fraud were not met with respect to the suspects, and that sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause requiring the filing of a public lawsuit could not be obtained.

In the operative part of the decision, it was separately ruled for a total of 12 suspects that there is no ground for prosecution .

This assessment does not constitute a general ruling that all transactions conducted via the P2P method are lawful. It is based on the evidence in the investigation file and the specific circumstances of the suspects.

What Is a Decision of Non-Prosecution? Legal Consequences Within the Scope of CMK Article 172

The decision of non-prosecution, as designated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, is a decision of no ground for prosecution.

According to Article 172 of the CMK, if the Public Prosecutor fails to obtain sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for filing a public lawsuit as a result of the investigation, or if there is no possibility of prosecution, the prosecutor shall issue a decision of no ground for prosecution.

This decision results in the non-filing of a public lawsuit during the investigation stage.

The issuance of a decision of non-prosecution and the establishment of an acquittal judgment are distinct from one another.

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

The decision rendered in the specific case file is a non-prosecution decision. No acquittal judgment has been issued by a criminal court regarding the suspects within the scope of this investigation.

Can a Decision of Non-Prosecution Be Appealed?

Yes. Article 173 of the CMK regulates the procedure for objecting to a decision of non-prosecution.

The aggrieved party, as of the service of the decision upon them, within two weeks may appeal to the designated criminal judgeship of peace provided by law.

The reviewed public prosecutor's decision also specifies the two-week appeal period starting from the notification.

Since there is no further verified information regarding the subsequent appeal process and finalization status of the decision, this review does not state that the decision has become final.

Can a Re-Investigation Be Conducted Regarding the Same Incident After a Decision of Non-Prosecution?

Article 172/2 of the CMK conditions the filing of a public lawsuit for the same act after a decision of non-prosecution upon certain conditions.

The requirements of new evidence constituting sufficient suspicion to necessitate the filing of a public lawsuit and the judicial decision stipulated by law are of significant importance.

Therefore, when evaluating the legal effects of a decision of non-prosecution, the nature of the decision, the appeal process (if any), and the subsequent status of evidence must be examined together.

Blocking of Bank Accounts Due to P2P Transactions

Individuals involved in criminal investigations due to P2P transactions may, in some cases, also face the issue of restriction or blocking of their bank accounts.

However, placing a block on a bank account and holding the account holder responsible for the crime of fraud are not the same legal issue.

The source of the restriction on the account may be the bank's own risk assessment, obligations within the scope of relevant legislation, or a provisional measure imposed by judicial authorities.

Therefore, it is not accurate to reach a general conclusion regarding which remedy to pursue without determining the legal nature of the account restriction.

Particularly in files involving crypto-asset transfers, the source of bank transactions and the economic purpose of the operations can gain significance.

More comprehensive explanations on the subject Placing a Freeze on a Foreigner’s Bank Account in Turkey is included in our legal analysis titled.

However, the examined non-prosecution decision contains no explicit provision stating that a freeze was placed on our client's bank account or that a specific freeze was lifted. This section has been prepared to explain the legal issues that P2P transactions may cause in other case files.

MASAK and Suspicious Transaction Assessment in Crypto Asset Transactions

Financial transactions linked to crypto assets are also significant with respect to regulations on the prevention of laundering proceeds of crime.

Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime and related regulations govern the obligations of obliged parties regarding customer due diligence and suspicious transaction reporting.

In the statement made by MASAK on July 23, 2024, it was stated that the suspicious transaction reporting guide for crypto asset service providers has been updated.

This guide contains transaction categories appropriate to the nature of crypto asset transactions and explanations regarding suspicious transaction reports.

To the relevant statement from MASAK’s official announcement regarding crypto asset service providers accessible.

However, the submission of a suspicious transaction report does not mean that a person is guilty under criminal law.

The suspicious transaction assessment relates to the financial system's risk monitoring obligations. The determination of criminal liability, on the other hand, requires a separate investigation and evidentiary evaluation.

Legal Issues Foreigners May Encounter in P2P and Cryptocurrency Transactions

Foreigners using bank accounts in Turkey who engage in crypto asset trading may require different evaluations in terms of banking, payment systems, and criminal law, depending on the specific nature of the transaction.

Particularly for foreign nationals, receiving funds from numerous different individuals into their bank accounts may prompt requests for additional information and documentation by banks pursuant to transaction monitoring and know-your-customer (KYC) processes.

It is evident that this situation does not directly imply the commission of the crime of fraud, nor does it necessarily mean that the transactions are lawful.

Regarding the identification procedures, account opening, and compliance obligations of banks concerning the opening and use of bank accounts by foreigners in Turkey, Opening a Bank Account for Foreigners in Turkey our article may be reviewed.

On the other hand, it is possible for a criminal investigation to trigger additional administrative consequences regarding a foreigner's legal status in Turkey.

However, it cannot be said that a decision of non-prosecution will automatically produce legal consequences in every case with respect to residence permits, entry bans, or restriction codes.

This distinction Immigration Law is also significant in the legal review of administrative actions that may arise within the scope of.

How Should Legal Analysis Be Conducted in P2P Fraud Investigations?

The fundamental approach established by the reviewed decision is that financial transactions should be evaluated not solely through bank account movements, but together with the true nature of the transaction and the elements of criminal liability.

In this context, various distinct legal scenarios may arise in investigation files.

Assertion of Genuine P2P Trading

The suspect may claim that the funds received in their account constitute the proceeds of a crypto-asset sale.

This defense must be examined in conjunction with other evidence.

The existence of a genuine crypto-asset sale must be evaluated separately from the question of whether the individual knowingly participated in the fraud organization.

Allowing Another Person to Use One's Account

An individual may have relinquished their bank account or credentials enabling account access to the use of third parties.

In such cases, the purpose for which the account was allowed to be used, the knowledge and intent of the account holder, and the criminal provisions in effect at the date of the act are of significance.

Every instance of permitting account use does not automatically mean that the same offense has been committed; however, this situation may necessitate a separate criminal law evaluation.

Prior Agreement with the Fraud Organization

The account holder's prior agreement with other individuals for fraudulent purposes or their conscious contribution to the commission of the crime constitutes a crucial factor regarding criminal liability.

In such cases, provisions regarding complicity and participation are evaluated based on concrete acts.

Third-Party Payment and the Seller's Knowledge

The fact that the sender of the payment in a P2P transaction differs from the buyer on the platform may necessitate a separate examination of the transaction.

However, this discrepancy alone is not sufficient to conclude that the crime has been committed.

What is crucial is the determination of the account holder's actual role and level of knowledge in the transaction through concrete evidence.

The Difference of This Non-Prosecution Decision from Other Criminal Investigations

In the decision of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office numbered 2026/108091, beyond the allegation of using a classic bank account, the triangular fraud method, which is assessed to have been carried out via P2P transactions, has been examined.

In this respect, the investigation includes a specific assessment that distinguishes the source of the funds coming into the bank account from the criminal liability of the account holder.

Featured on our website, Forgery of a Promissory Note Crime and Acquittal Decision analysis, on the other hand, discusses through what evidence criminal liability can be established for an act alleged to have been committed by another person.

Similarly, Elements of the Crime of Migrant Smuggling and Acquittal Decisions in our article titled, the proof of the material and moral elements of the crime has been additionally evaluated.

These files do not pertain to the same type of crime. However, in criminal law, a person appearing to be connected to the incident versus the proof that they committed a crime whose statutory elements have been fulfilled is comparable in terms of understanding the distinction between them.

Legal Assessment of the Investigation Followed by Atty. Batın YILMAZ

In this case, where Atty. Batın YILMAZ undertook the defense, it was crucial during the investigation stage to distinguish between P2P cryptocurrency transactions and the allegation of complicity in the crime of fraud.

The legal issue addressed during the investigation process is not merely whether funds were deposited into our client's bank account. It is also significant to determine the economic relationship within which this money transfer took place and through which concrete evidence the client's knowledge and intent regarding the act of fraud can be evaluated.

In criminal investigations, a significant portion of legal defense activities consists of understanding the material aspects of the incident and evaluating the evidence in the case file within the framework of the statutory elements of the crime.

Particularly in digital finance transactions, a distinction must be made between the manner in which the transaction is executed and the material facts upon which the criminal charge is based.

In the examined case file, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor evaluated the suspects' defenses regarding P2P transactions in conjunction with bank records and other investigative data.

It was decided not to file a public prosecution on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating the intent to participate in fraud.

The legally explanatory aspect of this decision is that the material connection in financial transactions does not automatically establish personal criminal liability.

The reasoning of the decision may be examined in terms of general principles applicable to different investigations; however, this does not mean that the same decision will be rendered in all P2P disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is engaging in P2P transactions a crime in Turkey’?

The use of the P2P method alone does not indicate that the crime of fraud has been committed. However, the legal status of the platform through which the transaction is executed, applicable financial regulations, the purpose of the transfer, and the specific actions of the individual must be evaluated separately.

Can a decision of non-prosecution be rendered in a P2P fraud investigation?

Yes. In the event that sufficient evidence creating a suspicion that would necessitate the filing of a public lawsuit cannot be obtained or where there is no basis for prosecution, a decision of non-prosecution may be issued pursuant to Article 172 of the CMK. In the investigated inquiry, such a decision was rendered regarding 12 suspects.

If money from a fraud victim is deposited into my bank account, am I considered guilty?

No. The mere arrival of funds in a bank account does not in itself prove the crime of fraud or the intent to participate in the crime. However, the reason why the person received the money, their dispositions regarding the account, and their relationship with other individuals must be investigated.

Is stating that a USDT sale was made via P2P sufficient for a decision of non-prosecution?

No. The assertion that a P2P sale was made does not alone result in a decision of non-prosecution. The defense is evaluated together with bank transactions and other evidence.

What is triangular fraud?

This is a fraud method where the perpetrator of the fraud directs the victim to make a payment to the account of an independent P2P seller, while the seller is able to transfer the crypto assets to a different account in exchange for the payment.

How is it determined whether a P2P seller has participated in fraud?

The seller's knowledge of the fraudulent act, intent, collusion with other individuals, communication records, and concrete contribution to the commission of the crime are evaluated. The mere arrival of money in a bank account may not be sufficient to prove the intent of complicity.

Does a decision of non-prosecution mean acquittal?

No. A decision of non-prosecution is rendered by the Public Prosecutor during the investigation phase. Acquittal, on the other hand, is one of the types of judgments rendered by the criminal court at the end of the prosecution.

Within how many days must an appeal be filed against a decision of non-prosecution?

Pursuant to Article 173 of the CMK, the aggrieved party may appeal to the designated criminal judgeship of peace within two weeks from the notification of the decision.

Can a bank account be blocked in a P2P transaction?

Depending on the nature of the specific transaction, the implementation of account restrictions by the bank or the issuance of protective measures by judicial authorities may arise. An evaluation must be made by determining the reason and legal basis of the block.

Can cryptocurrency transfer records serve as evidence in a criminal investigation?

Crypto asset transaction records lawfully obtained, bank records, and other relevant digital data may be evaluated in proving the specific incident. However, a transaction record alone does not definitively determine the existence or absence of the crime in every case.

What is the role of the lawyer in P2P fraud investigations?

Defense counsel ensures the protection of the suspect's right to defense; evaluates the legal nature of the accusation and the evidence, follows the necessary procedural actions, and may make legal applications to ensure that matters in favor of the client are addressed in the investigation.

What is the outcome of the decision of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office numbered 2026/108091?

On September 29, 2026, within the scope of the investigation numbered 2024/139219, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office issued a decision of non-prosecution regarding 12 suspects on the grounds that the legal elements of the crime of fraud were not met and sufficient evidence to establish reasonable suspicion could not be obtained.

Conclusion: P2P Transactions and Complicity in Fraud Must Be Evaluated Separately

The decision of non-prosecution of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, dated September 29, 2026, numbered 2024/139219 Investigation and 2026/108091 Decision,contains significant legal evaluations regarding the criminal liability of individuals facing fraud accusations due to P2P crypto asset transactions.

Within the scope of the investigation, it was evaluated that the complainant was directed by the perpetrators of the fraud and transferred money to bank accounts; however, sufficient evidence demonstrating that the suspects knowingly and willingly participated in this act could not be reached.

The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office did not consider the mere existence of money transfers sufficient to prove the intent to participate in the crime of fraud and issued a decision of non-prosecution regarding a total of 12 suspects.

Our client, whose defense counsel is Atty. Batın YILMAZ, is also included within the scope of this decision.

The legal efforts carried out during the investigation process focused on understanding the economic and technical nature of P2P transactions, evaluating the connection of bank transfers with the specific incident, and examining criminal liability on the basis of statutory elements.

The primary legal consequence of the decision is that receiving funds from a fraud victim in a bank account does not, by itself, demonstrate that the account holder participated in the crime of fraud.

In determining criminal liability, an individual's specific act, knowledge and intent, the statutory elements of the crime, and the evidence in the case file must be evaluated together.

This decision does not indicate that every transaction carried out via the P2P method is lawful or that a decision of non-prosecution will be issued in all similar investigations. The specific characteristics of the case and the status of the evidence are decisive.

Legal Resources and Related Reviews

Official Legislation and Institutional Resources

• 
  Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 – Fraud, Qualified Fraud, and Provisions on Aiding and Abetting Crimes
  
• 
  Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 – Investigation, Decision Not to Prosecute, and Objection
  
• 
  Court of Cassation Jurisprudence – Investigation, Evaluation of Evidence, and Article 172 of the CMK
  
• 
  MASAK – Crypto Asset Service Providers Suspicious Transaction Reporting Guide
  
• 
  MASAK – Crypto Asset Service Providers Guide and Current Obligations
  

Related Legal Analyses on Our Website

• 
  Criminal Law – Investigation and Defense Counsel Activities
  
• 
  Placing a Freeze on a Foreigner’s Bank Account in Turkey
  
• 
  Opening a Bank Account for Foreigners in Turkey
  
• 
  Forgery of a Promissory Note Crime and Acquittal Decision
  
• 
  Migrant Smuggling Crime, Elements of the Crime, and Acquittal Decisions
  
• 
  Immigration Law and Administrative Consequences of Criminal Investigations
  
• 
  Sample Court Decisions and Legal Analyses
  

Author Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ
Istanbul Bar Association – Bar Registry No: 77008
Batın Yılmaz Law Firm

Legal information and confidentiality: This article is a legal analysis of the decision not to prosecute rendered by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office Bureau of Forgery and Fraud, dated 29.09.2026, numbered 2024/139219 Investigation and 2026/108091 Decision. Personal information of the suspects and the complainant has not been disclosed. The content is limited to the legal evaluation of the specific case and does not contain any guarantee or claim of professional superiority regarding the achievement of the same outcome in other investigations.