Criminal Liability of the Site Manager: Embezzlement and Abuse of Office Crimes

This article is for legal, working, and general informational purposes. The subject matter is the criminal liability that may arise from the dispositions of apartment, site, or community association managers over dues, advances, common expenses, and management revenues. The review encompasses both the general legal framework and concrete incident types frequently encountered in practice.

LEGAL QUALIFICATION

The regular site manager elected by the condominium owners is, as a rule, not a public official. Therefore, embezzlement or abuse of office does not directly occur in every incident where dues or common expense funds are used improperly. Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the most frequently applicable type of crime, in the event of disposing of money entrusted for management purposes with the intent of acquisition, is embezzlement by abuse of confidence due to service.

This determination is based on two fundamental criminal law distinctions:

1. The crime of embezzlement is a specific crime regulated under Article 247 of the TCK. The perpetrator must be a public official.

2. The offense of abuse of office is regulated under Article 257 of the TCK and is likewise an offense inherent to the status of a public official.

The site manager, on the other hand, performs duties pursuant to the Condominium Law within a private law-based, agency-like relationship with the condominium owners. Therefore, the criminal liability of the manager is, in most cases, debated in terms of embezzlement by breach of confidence through service within the scope of Article 155/2 of the TCK.

According to Article 38 of the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu), the property manager is liable to the condominium owners just like an agent. The manager is obligated to collect common expenses, pay management debts, execute decisions, take necessary measures, and keep the collected funds in a bank account indicating their capacity as manager. These duties are explicitly enumerated in Article 35 of the Law.

Dolayısıyla site yöneticisinin aidat tahsil etmesi tek başına ceza sorumluluğu doğurmaz. Ceza sorumluluğu bakımından asıl soru şudur:

Were the common funds delivered to the manager for a specific purpose used outside the scope of management for the benefit of the manager or a third party, in a manner akin to exercising ownership rights?

The answer to this question is determined through bank account statements, income-expense ledgers, decision books, invoices, contracts, payment documents, expert witness examination, and the management plan.

---

PROCEDURAL LAW ANALYSIS

1. Criminal Complaint and Investigation Authority

The notification or complaint alleging that the site manager misappropriated dues or common expense funds, to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor or can be made to law enforcement authorities. Pursuant to Article 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), the notification or complaint may be submitted in writing or orally to be recorded in the minutes.

However, the criminal complaint must not be abstract and general in nature. Pursuant to Article 158/6 of the CMK, in cases where it is clearly understood that the act does not constitute a crime or where the notification is so abstract that it does not require a concrete investigation, a decision of non-prosecution may be issued.

For this reason, the following headings must be substantiated in the criminal complaint:

The dates between which the capacity as manager was held,

Which general assembly resolution it was elected by,

The amount of dues or advances collected,

Which account the funds are kept in,

Which expenses lack documentation or are suspicious,

For what purposes outside the scope of management the funds were used,

Demands for accounting and restitution made to the manager,

The approximate amount of the alleged damages,

Bank statements, receipts, resolution books, and invoices.

2. Competent Court

The penalty for the crime of embezzlement by abuse of office, regulated under Article 155/2 of the TCK, is imprisonment from one to seven years and a judicial fine. As a rule, trials for this offense are conducted before the Criminal Court of First Instance.

As for the crime of embezzlement under Article 247 of the TCK, the severity of the penalty prescribed and the requirement for the perpetrator to be a public official are taken into consideration. However, the application of the crime of embezzlement to a standard property manager is of an exceptional nature; it must first be investigated whether the manager is considered a public official participating in public activities and whether they bear liability as a public official pursuant to a special law.

3. Complaint and Mediation Assessment

The simple crime of embezzlement under TCK art. 155/1 is subject to a complaint. On the other hand, since site management is performed within the scope of the authority to administer another's property in the form of handing over dues and common expenses, in a significant portion of the cases, the aggravated type of embezzlement due to service under TCK art. 155/2 is debated.

In the specific case, which paragraph the crime falls under must be determined separately based on the nature of the delivery relationship, the manager's authority, management decisions, and the manner in which the money was used. Therefore, a definitive generalization such as "every dispute regarding dues is subject to a complaint" or "every managerial act is investigated ex officio" should not be made.

4. Statute of Limitations for Prosecution

According to TCK art. 66, the statute of limitations for prosecution is determined based on the upper limit of the penalty. Since the upper limit for the crime of embezzlement due to service is seven years of imprisonment, a general statute of limitations of fifteen years applies.

The statute of limitations begins to run from the date the act is committed in completed crimes. However, proceedings such as a prosecutor's statement, interrogation, drafting of an indictment, or a conviction judgment may interrupt the statute of limitations. In the event of an interruption, the period begins to run anew and may be extended within statutory limits.

If multiple collections and expenditures have been made throughout the management term, the date of each act and the applicability of continuing offense or chain offense provisions must be evaluated separately on the basis of the specific case.

5. Separation of Civil and Criminal Proceedings

A site manager's failure to account or poor performance of managerial duties does not automatically constitute a criminal offense. Certain disputes involve;

rendering an accounting,

dismissal of the manager,

violation of the management plan,

receivables for common expenses,

compensation,

delivery of management ledgers,

annulment of condominium owners' board resolutions,

are private law disputes that can be resolved in civil courts.

In criminal investigations, elements such as the intent of acquisition, misuse of the delivered funds outside their intended purpose, actual damage, and use for the perpetrator's personal benefit must be demonstrated with concrete evidence.

---

DEMAND AND CRIME TYPE ANALYSIS

1. Evaluation in Terms of the Crime of Embezzlement

According to TCK Art. 247, embezzlement is the appropriation of property by a public official for themselves or another person, where the possession of the property was transferred due to their duty or where they are obligated to protect and supervise it.

The essential elements of the crime of embezzlement are as follows:

Element	Explanation
Fail	Must be a public official.
Property	The property must have been left in the possession of the perpetrator due to their duty or entrusted to their protection and supervision.
Act	The property must be disposed of as if being the owner, for the benefit of the perpetrator or a third party.
Mental element	The act must be committed intentionally.
Connection	The delivery of the property to the perpetrator must take place due to a public duty.
Definition of a public official	A person who participates in the execution of public activity through appointment, election, or by other means (TCK art. 6/1-c)

An apartment or housing estate manager elected by the board of condominium owners generally performs a managerial duty arising from a private law relationship. Pursuant to Article 38 of the Condominium Law, the manager is liable to the condominium owners like an agent. This duty does not in itself constitute participation in a public activity.

Therefore, if an ordinary housing estate manager transfers maintenance dues to their personal account or makes undocumented expenses, the initial legal assessment should be made towards &#8220embezzlement” (misappropriation), but rather abuse of confidence through service.

However, if specific persons are imposed criminal liability like a public official by a special law, the outcome may change. For instance, there may be special statutory regulations regarding cooperative managers. This exception cannot be applied by analogy to housing estate management.

2. Assessment in Terms of the Crime of Abuse of Office

Pursuant to Article 257 of the TCK, in cases not separately defined as a crime in the law, a public official who acts contrary to the requirements of their office, causing grievance to individuals, public loss, or providing unfair advantage to individuals, shall be penalized.

The article also regulates negligence or delay in performing the requirements of the duty.

For this crime as well, it is mandatory that the perpetrator be a public official. Therefore, an ordinary housing estate manager elected by condominium owners;

failing to convene the general assembly in a timely manner,

submitting the accounts with delay,

neglecting the maintenance agreement,

conducting the collection of dues irregularly,

failing to keep the decision book in due form,

does not, on its own, constitute the crime of abuse of office within the meaning of Article 257 of the TCK.

These behaviors may constitute a breach of the management plan, the Condominium Law, or a agency-like relationship. However, the application of Article 257 of the TCK requires the status of a public official.

3. Assessment in Terms of the Crime of Embezzlement/Breach of Trust Due to Service

The crime of breach of trust due to service, regulated under Article 155/2 of the TCK, constitutes the most significant criminal law risk for site managers.

According to the article, if the act of breach of trust is committed regarding property entrusted due to the authority to manage the property of another, regardless of the reason for its origin, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to seven years and a judicial fine.

For a site manager to be held liable for this crime, the following conditions must be met concurrently:

Required Condition	Appearance in Site Management
Delivery or transfer of possession	Dues, advance payments, common expenses, fixture costs, or funds collected for special purposes must have been left at the manager's disposal.
Administrative authority	The manager must have the authority to manage common funds based on a resolution of the condominium owners or the management plan.
Misappropriation (use outside the intended purpose)	Funds must be used for purposes other than maintenance, repair, security, cleaning, heating, or other common expenses.
Personal or third-party benefit	The manager must use the funds for themselves or another person, acting as the owner.
Intent	There must be conscious and intentional abuse, not a mistake, accounting irregularity, or unproven account discrepancy.

For example, the following actions may require examination in terms of embezzlement/breach of trust due to service, depending on the evidence:

Transfer of collected dues to the manager's personal account and failure to return them,

Issuing fake or misleading invoices for services not actually rendered,

Using funds collected on behalf of the condominium/site for the payment of personal debts,

Making gratuitous payments from the management budget to relatives or third parties,

Allocating shared expense funds to the manager's personal expenditures in violation of management resolutions,

Failure of the manager to hand over the accounts and balance at the end of their term of office; inability to account for the whereabouts of the funds.

Conversely, the following circumstances do not always constitute a criminal offense:

Irregular maintenance of expenditure documents,

Accounting errors in the management accounts,

Budget overruns,

Expenditures subsequently disapproved by the board of condominium owners,

Differences in interpretation regarding the limits of authority,

Transfers between accounts,

Annulment of the management resolution by the civil court,

The expense being economically imprudent or costly.

In such cases, unless the intent of personal benefit and acquisition of property is conclusively established, a criminal conviction cannot be rendered.

---

PRECEDENT CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Legal Weight of Precedents

Yargıtay decisions do not possess general and abstract binding effect like statutory provisions. Nevertheless, they serve as a strong guide in practice regarding the interpretation of the elements of the crime, the limits of criminal liability, and the evaluation of evidence.

In particular, decisions of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Yargıtay possess a higher persuasive authority compared to chamber decisions.

Judgment Summary Table

Ruling	Incident and Legal Issue	Conclusion	Principle to be Applied in the Document
General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Yargıtay, E. 2021/44, K. 2022/790, D. 08.12.2022	Whether the act of an attorney failing to remit funds collected on behalf of a client constitutes embezzlement or breach of trust	In favor of the defendant; the embezzlement conviction was reversed	The crime of embezzlement requires the status of a public official and the delivery of the property due to public duties. The act of a person within a private law/agency relationship does not automatically constitute embezzlement.
11th Criminal Chamber of the Yargıtay, E. 2021/21427, K. 2023/3556, D. 03.05.2023	Allegation of misappropriation of funds collected for roof renovation and site expenses by the site manager	Acquittal in favor of the site manager was upheld	If expert examination fails to establish a financial deficit or irregular expenditure, a conviction cannot be rendered based solely on an accounting discrepancy.
Yargıtay 11th Criminal Chamber, E. 2021/24055, K. 2025/8311, T. 03.07.2025	Allegation that the site manager showed undocumented expenses and made unauthorized credit card expenditures on behalf of the site	Acquittal in favor of the site manager was upheld	Undocumented or disputed expenditure allegations do not solely constitute embezzlement through abuse of office unless the material and mental elements of the crime are proven.
Yargıtay General Assembly of Criminal Chambers, E. 2021/280, K. 2023/20, T. 18.01.2023	Embezzlement liability of cooperative managers due to provisions in special laws	Against the managers	Situations where special laws explicitly prescribe liability similar to that of a public servant constitute an exception; this exception cannot be extended by analogy to site managers.

Yargıtay General Assembly of Criminal Chambers, E. 2021/44, K. 2022/790, T. 08.12.2022

This decision sets forth the most significant distinction regarding the criminal liability of a site manager. The decision evaluated the act of an attorney failing to remit funds collected on behalf of their client. The General Assembly of Criminal Chambers emphasized that the attorney did not exercise public authority in the relevant specific activity and that the funds were handed over within the scope of the proxy relationship.

As a result of the judgment, it was stated that the act should be evaluated within the scope of embezzlement due to service rather than the crime of embezzlement.

Although this decision is not directly related to apartment/site management, it is important in terms of the following fundamental principle:

The execution of a specific task by an individual due to election, appointment, or professional status does not automatically convert them into a public official who can be the perpetrator of the crime of embezzlement.

The site manager is also in a private law relationship with the condominium owners. Dues and common expense funds are not public resources belonging to the public administration; they are private law assets left to the disposition of the manager by the condominium owners for the purpose of common management. Therefore, in the concrete case, unless there is a public official status or a special legal regulation, resorting to the crime of embezzlement will not be appropriate.

2. Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 11th Criminal Chamber, E. 2021/21427, K. 2023/3556, T. 03.05.2023

This decision was rendered directly regarding a site manager. It was alleged that the defendant manager misused the funds collected for roof repairs and other site expenses.

An expert examination was conducted in the case file; the different accounts of the site, the amounts transferred from the previous period, and the transfers between accounts were evaluated together. The expert report concluded that there was no site money left on the manager and that no irregular expenditure could be determined.

The court rendered an acquittal, and the Court of Cassation upheld the acquittal judgment on the grounds that there was no concrete evidence beyond any doubt sufficient for conviction.

The aspect of the decision to be applied to concrete cases is as follows:

Site accounts should be examined not piece by piece, but by taking into account the entire management period and transfers between accounts.

Accounting deficiencies, document irregularities, or differences that cannot be explained at first glance are not sufficient for a criminal conviction unless personal use and intent are proven.

Expert examinations, bank records, and resolution/decision books are decisive evidence.

In criminal proceedings, the principle of "in dubio pro reo" (the benefit of the doubt favors the defendant) applies.

This decision must be applied in a balanced manner in the article with respect to both site managers and flat owners: It demonstrates the complainant's burden of concrete evidence and the manager's obligation to keep transparent and verifiable accounts.

3. Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, E. 2021/24055, K. 2025/8311, T. 03.07.2025

This decision is also directly related to site management. It was alleged that the manager showed undocumented and unexplained expenses in the income-expense ledger and also made unauthorized credit card expenditures on behalf of the site.

The court of first instance rendered an acquittal on the grounds that the actions did not constitute the elements of the crime of embezzlement due to service (abuse of confidence). The Court of Cassation upheld the acquittal.

The significance of the decision is as follows:

An undocumented or controversial expense entry alone does not indicate that the manager appropriated the funds for their own benefit or that of a third party.

Nevertheless, this decision does not legitimize managers failing to comply with documentation rules. Undocumented expenditures may result in consequences regarding legal liability, the duty to account, dismissal of the manager, compensation, violation of the management plan, and, where necessary, different types of crimes. However, for a criminal conviction, all elements of the crime must be proven definitively and convincingly.

4. Court of Cassation General Assembly of Criminal Chambers, E. 2021/280, K. 2023/20, T. 18.01.2023

This decision was rendered regarding cooperative managers. In the decision, it was accepted that cooperative managers may be held liable as public officials due to special statutory regulations.

The decision is not a direct precedent against site managers; on the contrary, it illustrates a limitation. Due to the explicit special regulation in the Cooperatives Law, an embezzlement assessment could be made regarding cooperative managers. Since there is no provision of criminal liability of the same nature in the Condominium Law regarding regular site managers, it is not possible to automatically apply the embezzlement approach established for cooperative managers to site managers.

---

EVIDENCE EVALUATION AND CORRELATION

Evidence That Must Be Collected by the Complainant or Flat Owners

Suggested Addition	Evidence	Purpose of proof
ANNEX-1	Management plan	Determination of the duties, powers, and responsibilities of the manager
ANNEX-2	Resolutions of the board of condominium owners	Election of the manager, spending authorities, budget, and special repair resolutions
ANNEX-3	Resolution book	Examination of adopted resolutions and authorizations
ANNEX-4	Operating project and dues tables	Determination of common expenses that must be collected and have been collected
ANNEX-5	Bank account statements	Determination of collections, payments, transfers to personal accounts, and cash flow
ANNEX-6	Receipts, collection lists, POS records	Determination of dues or advance collections
ANNEX-7	Invoices, contracts, proposals, and delivery documents	Veracity of expenditures and their connection to the purpose of management
ANNEX-8	Independent financial advisor or expert witness report	Allegations of account deficit, unauthorized use of funds, and personal benefit
ANNEX-9	Formal notices and requests for accounting	Requests for restitution, explanation, and submission of documents directed to the manager
ANNEX-10	Text messages, emails, and correspondence	Assessment regarding intent, admission, concealment, or the intent to return funds
ANNEX-11	Witness statements	Substantiation of allegations concerning expenditures, resolutions, deliveries, and factual use

Evidence of Significance in the Defense of the Site Manager

The strongest defense for a manager is not a mere denial, but a clear, verifiable, and chronological documentary order. The following documents are particularly important:

Explicit authorization resolutions issued by the board of condominium owners,

Proposals, contracts, invoices, and payment documents related to expenditures,

Records showing that collections and expenses were made through the bank,

The justification for transfers between accounts,

Debt and credit records carried over from the previous period,

The management balance taken over,

The handover and takeover report drawn up at the end of the management term,

If there is any money transferred to the manager's personal account, documents showing the reason for this and its refund,

Independent expert or financial advisor report.

---

OPPOSING PARTY'S PROBABLE DEFENSE

“Expenses Without Receipts Are Evidence of Personal Use.”

This allegation alone is not sufficient. In terms of criminal law, it must be demonstrated that the expenditure without a receipt was used for the personal benefit of the manager or a third party; in other words, that it was disposed of like an owner outside the purpose of the transfer of possession.

Counter-evaluation: Whether the expenditure was actually made; whether the service was physically performed; the identity of the payee; site resolutions; bank transactions and the entire management period must be investigated through expert examination.

“The Manager Is Not Accounting; Therefore, the Offence Is Proven.”

Failure to account may create a serious legal problem; the dismissal of the manager, an action for accounting, and liability for damages may come into question. However, mere failure to account is not sufficient for a criminal conviction.

Counter-evaluation: The monetary deficit, misuse of funds, intent to acquire property, and misappropriation for personal or third-party benefit must be concretely proven.

“Funds That Do Not Belong to the Public May Also Be the Subject of the Crime of Embezzlement.”

The determining factor in the crime of embezzlement is not merely the nature of the property, but the perpetrator's status as a public official and the fact that the property was left in their possession due to their public duties.

Counter-evaluation: The proxy-like status of an administrator elected by condominium owners within a private law relationship is generally insufficient regarding the perpetrator element of the crime of embezzlement. Yargıtay The decision of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers dated December 8, 2022, indicates that a delivery relationship based on private law should be evaluated within the scope of breach of trust rather than embezzlement.

“An Expenditure Made Without a General Assembly Resolution Constitutes a Crime.”

An expenditure made without a general assembly resolution may violate the management plan or the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu). However, not every unauthorized expenditure constitutes a criminal offense.

Counter-evaluation: An evaluation must be made as to whether the expenditure was incurred for urgent maintenance, security, repair, or the prevention of damage; the administrator's statutory authority; whether the funds were actually utilized for the benefit of the site; and whether there was any personal gain.

“Because the Money Was Later Returned, the Crime Was Never Committed.”

The subsequent return of the funds does not mean that the crime was never committed. However, the timing of the restitution, its voluntary nature, and whether the damage was fully remedied may be significant regarding the sentencing amount.

Regarding the crime of embezzlement, a reduction in sentence tied to effective remorse is regulated under Article 248 of the TCK. As for breach of trust due to service, restitution may be significant depending on the specifics of the case in evaluating intent, remedying the damage, mediation, or the individualization of the sentence.

---

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE

The decisive questions for the criminal court or investigative authority are as follows:

1. Did the suspect or accused actually act in the capacity of a site manager?

2. Within the scope of which resolution, authority, or de facto delivery relationship were the funds handed over to the manager?

3. What is the total amount of collected dues and advances?

4. The alleged deficit or irregularity stems from which period and which transaction?

5. Has it been demonstrated with concrete evidence that the money was used outside the scope of the site's purpose?

6. Has any personal disposition in favor of the manager or a third party been established?

7. Although the expenditures were made for the benefit of the site, do they merely bear a documentation issue?

8. Have inter-account transfers, debts from previous periods, and carried-over balances been examined?

9. Is the expert report reviewable, reasoned, and comprehensive enough to cover the entire accounting period?

10. Has intent been proven beyond any doubt?

The strongest evidence for a conviction includes: transfer of funds to the manager's personal account, payment of personal debts, issuance of fictitious invoices, payments for unperformed work, intentional concealment of documents, explicit confession, and a verifiable financial expert report.

Conversely, merely being disliked as a manager, disputes experienced at the general assembly, budget debates, suspicion of undocumented expenditures, or confused accounts are not sufficient for a criminal conviction.

---

LITIGATION AND DISPUTE STRATEGY

From the Perspective of Condominium Owners or Aggrieved Parties

1. Management documents, bank accounts, invoices, and the resolution ledger must be gathered first.

2. Account discrepancies must be substantiated with the support of a financial advisor or expert witness before being referred to a criminal investigation.

3. Instead of making abstract allegations that “money is missing” in the criminal complaint, specific details regarding dates, amounts, accounts, transactions, lack of authorization, and connections to personal gain must be clearly explained.

4. Alongside the criminal investigation, remedies such as the dismissal of the manager, rendering of accounts, and claims for compensation must be evaluated separately.

5. Digital correspondence and bank records must be preserved without alteration and submitted to the case file in a lawful manner.

From the Perspective of the Property Manager

1. All collections and payments should be conducted, as much as possible, through bank accounts opened in the name of the management.

2. If cash collection is mandatory, receipts, collection schedules, and bank deposit slips must be issued.

3. All expenses, including emergency or compulsory expenditures, must be supported by invoices, proposals, contracts, and payment vouchers.

4. Condominium owners board resolutions and spending authorities must be kept in writing and readily accessible.

5. Accounts must be kept separate from personal assets; site funds must not be used in personal accounts or on personal credit cards.

6. At the end of the term of office, a detailed statement of account and a handover protocol must be prepared.

7. When a criminal accusation arises, the defense must be established based on financial records and an independent expert review.

In conclusion, the criminal liability of a property manager arises not from the “poor execution of managerial duties”, but from concrete, intentional acts aimed at misappropriation. As a rule, the offenses of embezzlement and misconduct in office do not apply to standard property managers; however, if dues and common expense funds are used for personal benefit outside the scope of management, the offense of embezzlement by breach of trust may seriously come into question.

---

About Us – Contact Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Bar Association Information:

• Istanbul Bar Association No. 1: 77008
• Union of Turkish Bar Associations: 187392

Address:
Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133
Beylikdüzü, İstanbul

Contact:
📞 Telephone: 0 532 669 34 90
📞 Alternative Phone: 0 532 732 34 90
🌐 Contact Page