Placing a Freeze on a Foreigner's Bank Account in Turkey: MASAK Investigation and Lifting the Freeze

It is possible for foreign natural and legal persons residing, investing, purchasing real estate, or engaging in commercial activities in Turkey to encounter transaction restrictions or blocks on their accounts in Turkish banks. In such cases, the primary question that must be answered is what legal ground the restriction is based upon. This is because transaction suspensions under MASAK, asset seizures in criminal investigations, temporary account freezes within the scope of CMK Art. 128/A, and transaction restrictions arising from the bank's know-your-customer obligations are subject to different legal regimes.

Particularly for foreign account holders, high-value international money transfers, the bank's inability to adequately explain the source of funds, receiving transfers from numerous third parties within a short period, intense money movements with crypto asset platforms, or outdated customer information may lead the bank to conduct additional reviews. However, not every restriction is based on the same legal authority, and the duration of the applied measure and the method of appeal vary accordingly.

For general information on the legal status of foreigners in Turkey, immigration law our page; and in cases where residency status is linked to banking transactions, our guide to residence permits in Turkey you may review.

Why Are Freezes Placed on Foreigners' Bank Accounts?

In order to determine the legal nature of a restriction on a bank account, notifications received from the bank, account activity, prosecutor or judge decisions if any, and transaction dates must be examined together. In practice, four main distinct legal situations are encountered.

1. Suspension of Transactions within the Scope of MASAK: Law No. 5549 Art. 19/A

Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime pursuant to Article 19/A; in the event of a suspicion that the assets subject to a transaction attempted to be conducted or currently ongoing with obliged parties are related to the crime of laundering or financing of terrorism, the transaction may be suspended for a period of seven business days, or the realization of the transaction may not be permitted for the same duration.

According to the Law, the authority belongs to the Minister of Treasury and Finance, and the Minister may delegate this authority to the Deputy Minister. The implementation procedures are further governed by the Regulation on the Postponement of Transactions within the Scope of the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime and Financing of Terrorism .

The crucial point here is that the seven-business-day period stipulated in the law should not be construed as a direct and unlimited "power to freeze accounts." The legal basis and duration of the postponement applied to the specific transaction must be examined separately, and it should be investigated whether there is a new and valid legal basis ensuring the continuation of the restriction upon the expiration of the period.

2. Judicial Seizure of Bank Accounts within the Scope of CMK Article 128

In a criminal investigation or prosecution, in the event of strong suspicion based on concrete evidence that a crime has been committed and that the asset values are derived from this crime, asset values belonging to the suspect or defendant, including bank accounts, Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 may be seized within the scope of Article 128.

In the current text of CMK m.128, accounts in banks or other financial institutions are explicitly listed among the assets subject to seizure. Furthermore, as a rule, it is stipulated that a report shall be obtained from MASAK, BDDK, SPK, or other institutions specified in the article, as applicable, regarding the value derived from the offense.

Important: Pursuant to CMK m.128/9, only a judge may decide on seizure within the scope of this article. Therefore, statements asserting that the Public Prosecutor may independently issue a temporary seizure decision in terms of CMK m.128 are not compatible with the current text of the article.

For the general framework of criminal investigation and protection measures criminal law and investigation processes page may also be reviewed.

3. Suspension of Accounts for Up to 48 Hours Within the Scope of CMK m.128/A

CMK m.128/A, which entered into force on December 25, 2025, has introduced a separate account suspension system, particularly for certain informatics and asset offenses.

In the event of reasonable suspicion that the crimes of qualified theft, qualified fraud cases specified by law, or misuse of bank or credit cards have been committed; accounts used in the crime held at a bank, payment service provider, or crypto asset service provider may be for up to 48 hours suspended by the relevant financial institution.

The suspension procedure is immediately reported to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. CMK m.128/A also provides for notification to be made to the account holder. The account holder may apply to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for the removal of the suspension, and the public prosecutor must decide on this application within 24 hours.

This regime must be evaluated separately from MASAK's seven-business-day transaction postponement under 5549 m.19/A and the seizure by judicial decision under CMK m.128.

4. Suspicious Transaction Reporting and the Bank's Know Your Customer (KYC) Obligations

Pursuant to Article 4 of Law No. 5549, banks and other obligated parties are required to report to MASAK in the event of any information, suspicion, or grounds for suspicion that the assets subject to a transaction were acquired through illegal means or used for illegal purposes.

The fact that a suspicious transaction report has been filed cannot be disclosed to the customer, except for the exceptions specified by law. Therefore, the bank's failure to provide details of the suspicious transaction report to the customer does not, in and of itself, constitute an illegality. However, this confidentiality obligation cannot be interpreted as an independent authority that prevents the customer from accessing their deposit indefinitely without any legal basis.

Banks also have the obligation to monitor the customer's identity, address, nature of transactions, and sources of funds on a risk-sensitive basis. MASAK's explanations regarding know your customer measures and MASAK frequently asked questions section, clearly state that customer information and documents must be kept up to date within the scope of the continuous business relationship.

Therefore, in the event that a foreign customer's passport, address, or other identification information cannot be updated, it may be possible for the bank to refrain from executing transactions. This situation should be evaluated primarily within the scope of Law No. 5549 and related know-your-customer regulations, rather than as an "account blocking authority" directly stemming from the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458.

If the foreigner's residence status needs to be evaluated separately, residence permit extension application and short-term residence permit our guides can be reviewed.

How is the 7-Business-Day Rule Applied in MASAK Investigations?

The primary purpose of Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 is to enable MASAK to conduct an analysis by suspending the suspicious transaction for a specific and limited period, and to allow the obtained information to be transferred to the competent authorities when necessary.

The process generally proceeds as follows:

1. The bank or other obligated party detects the suspicious transaction.
2. If the necessary conditions are met, a suspicious transaction report is submitted to MASAK.
3. If it is assessed that the postponement of the transaction is necessary, the mechanism under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 may be triggered.
4. Within the scope of the decision issued by the competent authority, the transaction may be postponed for a maximum period of seven business days.
5. Depending on the outcome of the review, the file may be referred to judicial authorities, or the legal basis ensuring the continuation of the postponement regarding the relevant transaction may cease to exist.

The seven-business-day period does not mean that the account can be rendered unusable under all circumstances and indefinitely. However, it must also be verified from the specific case file whether there are separate postponement decisions for the same account on different dates and upon different transaction requests.

This distinction is of particular importance in the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation explained below.

The Difference Between a MASAK Freeze, CMK Confiscation, and Bank Restrictions

What Steps Should Be Taken to Lift the Freeze on a Bank Account?

1. The Legal Basis of the Freeze Must First Be Determined

At the initial stage, the legal nature of the restriction on the account should be ascertained from the bank branch or the bank's headquarters units to the extent possible.

It may be prohibited for the bank to disclose the suspicious transaction report itself; however, it must be further investigated whether there is a judicial authority decision, attachment, injunction, CMK m.128/A notification, or another explicit legal restriction on the account.

In the event that a foreign national is a party to a criminal investigation in Turkey, an examination may also be conducted via UYAP and the relevant prosecutor's office file. With regard to foreign nationals who are required to be in Turkey due to a judicial or administrative process residence permit by judicial or administrative authority decision the subject may additionally come to the agenda.

2. A Written Application Must Be Made to the Bank

If the reason for the restriction is not understood or if it is thought that the statutory period has expired, it is important to submit a written application to the bank. The application should clearly state the account information, the date when the restriction was first noticed, the transactions that could not be executed, and the explanation requested from the bank.

If required by the specific circumstances of the case, an application may also be made to the bank via a notary public notice. However, instead of requesting the notice to contain an explanation that would violate the bank's confidentiality obligation regarding the suspicious transaction report, it should be requested that the legal basis of the existing restriction and whether there is an ongoing judicial decision be explained to the extent permitted by the legislation.

Pursuant to Article 61 of the Banking Law No. 5411, without prejudice to the powers granted and obligations imposed by other laws, the rights of deposit and participation fund holders to withdraw the amounts owed to them cannot be restricted.

3. An Objection May Be Filed Against the CMK m.128 Decision

If the restriction on the account is based on a seizure decision rendered by a judge within the scope of CMK m.128, the objection provisions set forth in CMK m.267 et seq. shall apply.

According to the current regulation of CMK m.268, unless a special period is stipulated in the law, the objection shall be made within two weeks from the date of learning of the decision is made to the authority rendering the decision.

In the objection, particularly the following matters may be evaluated with concrete documents:

• Whether there is concrete evidence indicating that the funds in the account were derived from a crime,
• Whether a nexus can be established between the funds and the crime subject to the investigation,
• Whether there is a contract, invoice, tax record, bank transfer, or sales document demonstrating the legitimate source of the funds,
• Whether the required institutional report has been obtained within the scope of Article 128 of the CMK,
• Whether the scope of the seizure is proportionate.

4. Application to the Public Prosecutor's Office for Suspension under Article 128/A of the CMK

If the restriction falls within the scope of Article 128/A of the CMK, the account holder has the right to apply directly to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and request the lifting of the suspension procedure. According to the law, the public prosecutor must make a decision regarding this application within 24 hours.

5. Legal Remedies Against the Bank's Restriction Lacking Legal Basis

In the event that there is no valid judicial or administrative decision preventing the use of the account and the bank's failure to process transactions cannot be based on a contractual or statutory ground, the legal liability of the bank may arise.

The competent court must be determined according to the nature of the account holder and the transaction. If the banking transaction is of a consumer transaction nature, consumer law provisions; if it is a dispute related to a commercial enterprise, commercial law provisions may apply. Therefore, a general acceptance stating directly that "the Civil Court of First Instance has jurisdiction" is not accurate for every bank freeze.

For the general principles of disputes arising from administrative acts, you can also visit our administrative law page.

Ruling of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case No. E.2022/3529, Decision No. K.2023/7312

One of the significant precedents concerning the restriction of account usage following a bank's suspicious transaction reports is the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Yargıtay dated 12.12.2023, E.2022/3529, K.2023/7312 .

The official jurisprudence record of the decision can be accessed via the Ministry of Justice Legislation and Jurisprudence Information System can be tracked via.

In the dispute, the plaintiff initiated enforcement proceedings for the collection of their deposits due to being unable to use three separate accounts held at the bank. The case involved discussions regarding multiple seven-business-day postponement decisions issued by MASAK concerning the accounts.

The court of first instance evaluated that there was no legal basis for the period outside the timeframes covered by the postponement decisions submitted to the file and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The Regional Court of Justice, however, reached a different conclusion by taking the MASAK decisions into account with respect to certain accounts.

Upon its review, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Yargıtay primarily evaluated the factual basis cited by the bank for its suspicious transaction report and concluded that the bank's report, filed under the suspicion of a suspicious transaction, was not based on any material evidence. Within the framework of the specific circumstances of the case, the Chamber accepted that the bank is liable for the damages arising from the inability to use the account, thereby reversing the decision of the Regional Court of Justice.

This decision should not be interpreted to mean that every suspicious transaction report or every multiple MASAK postponement decision is inherently unlawful. The significance of the decision lies in indicates that the concrete factual basis of the notification, the legal grounds for the applied restriction, and the relationship between the bank's conduct and the resulting damage must be examined separately.

Why Is It Important to Document the Source of Funds in Foreign Accounts?

It is not unlawful in and of itself for foreign account holders to transfer large sums of money to Turkey. However, due to banks' know-your-customer and transaction monitoring obligations, the economic purpose of the transfer and the source of the funds may be inquired about.

Depending on the specific transaction, the following documents may be relevant:

• Foreign bank account statements,
• Company income and dividend documents,
• Real estate or company share purchase agreements,
• Tax returns,
• Inheritance documents,
• Invoices and commercial contracts,
• Transaction history and deposit/withdrawal records of crypto asset platforms,
• Contracts demonstrating the purpose of the investment to be made in Turkey.

For foreign nationals making investments in Turkey, Turkish citizenship by investment and residence permit through real estate acquisition guides may also be relevant.

Account Restrictions in Crypto Asset and P2P Transfers

Crypto asset transactions or peer-to-peer transfers may be flagged as high-risk within banks' transaction monitoring systems, particularly when funds are received from numerous different individuals. However, engaging in crypto asset transactions does not, in and of itself, imply the commission of a crime.

In such cases, the importance increases for crypto asset platform account records, wallet movements, trading history, the reconciliation of money transfers with platform activities, and the explanation of the initial source of the funds.

Regarding international AML/CFT standards, FATF Recommendations are based on a risk-based approach. FATF standards provide for the assessment of concrete risks rather than the automatic exclusion of an entire customer group from the financial system.

Block on Foreign Currency Transfers Received for Real Estate Investment

In the event that a high-value transfer is made to Turkey from a personal or corporate account abroad for the purpose of purchasing real estate in Turkey, the bank may investigate the source of the funds and the economic purpose of the transaction.

Particularly for transfers made from a corporate account to a personal account, it may be necessary to document the legal relationship between the company and the account holder, specifically whether it constitutes profit distribution, shareholder receivables, a loan, capital repayment, or another legal basis.

Regarding citizenship by investment, as of 2026, qualifying real estate investments of at least USD 400,000 continue to be one of the available methods. For detailed conditions, Turkish citizenship application our page can be reviewed.

Can an Account Be Restricted Due to ID, Passport, or Address Updates?

Banks are responsible for keeping the identity and address information of customers with whom they establish an ongoing business relationship up to date. MASAK regulations do not make a distinction between Turkish citizens and foreign customers regarding this fundamental obligation.

If identity verification or the required update cannot be performed, the bank may refuse to execute the customer's new transaction requests. Therefore, foreign account holders may be required to submit current passports, addresses, and, when necessary, documents showing their legal status in Türkiye to the bank.

For foreigners whose residence permit has expired or whose renewal process is ongoing, which document can be used must be evaluated separately in accordance with the specific bank's compliance procedure and relevant legislation. For the general framework of residence permit applications, our residence permit guide you may review.

Can Damages Arising from a Account Block Be Claimed from the Bank?

If it is alleged that the customer suffered a loss as a result of the bank's unlawful transaction, not only the existence of the freeze must be established, but also the bank's fault or unlawful conduct, the damage, and the causal link.

Depending on the specific case, it may be possible to claim loss of interest, contractual damages, or other pecuniary losses. However, it cannot be said that items such as exchange rate differences, loss of commercial reputation, or non-pecuniary damages will be automatically compensated in every incident. The nature and proof of the claim must be evaluated separately.

In the ruling of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Yargıtay numbered E.2022/3529, K.2023/7312, the liability of the bank regarding the loss of account usage arising from its notification not based on concrete evidence in the specific case was also evaluated.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can I find out why a freeze has been placed on my bank account?

First, a written application should be made to the bank, and the nature of the legal action obstructing the use of the account should be inquired. The bank may not disclose that it has made a suspicious transaction report; however, whether there is a judicial authority decision or another explicit restriction can be further investigated. If necessary, the prosecutor's office and UYAP records should be examined.

For a maximum of how many days can MASAK place a freeze on a bank account?

The authority to suspend transactions within the scope of Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 is limited to seven business days for the relevant transaction. However, there may be other restrictions on the same account regarding different legal grounds or different transaction requests. Therefore, legal conclusions should not be drawn solely by looking at how long the account has been unusable.

Does the bank account automatically and fully unfreeze once the seven business days expire?

The specific transaction suspension under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 has a seven-business-day limit. However, if there is a seizure on the account pursuant to Article 128 of the CMK, an action under Article 128/A of the CMK, an attachment, an injunction, or another valid legal restriction, the outcome regarding the use of the account may differ. All decisions in the file must be reviewed together.

Can the bank freeze my account indefinitely on its own authority?

The bank has obligations regarding suspicious transaction reporting, know-your-customer (KYC), and risk management. However, these cannot be interpreted as an unlimited authority to impose indefinite deposit restrictions without any legal basis. The concrete legal basis and duration of the restriction must be examined separately.

Can a prosecutor place a freeze on a bank account within the scope of CMK Art. 128?

According to the current text of Article 128/9 of the CMK, only a judge may issue a seizure decision under this article. Article 128/A of the CMK, on the other hand, is a different provision that allows financial institutions to suspend accounts for up to 48 hours in certain offenses and requires notification to the public prosecutor's office.

What is the objection period in days against a decision under CMK Art. 128?

According to the current text of Article 268 of the CMK, unless a special period is otherwise provided in the law, an objection shall be filed within two weeks from the date of becoming aware of the decision.

Can a foreign national who is not in Turkey carry out unfreezing procedures through an attorney?

Depending on the nature of the transaction, a foreign national may execute a duly issued power of attorney and conduct their proceedings before banks, the public prosecutor's office, and courts in Turkey through an attorney. The execution form of the power of attorney, as well as the need for certification or an apostille, must be determined separately based on the foreign national's country of location and the transaction to be performed.

Can interest or commercial losses arising from a bank freeze be claimed?

In the event that an adequate causal link between the bank's unlawful and culpable act and the damages is proven, a claim for compensation may arise. However, the items and amount of damages must be proven separately in each specific case.

Conclusion

The most crucial step regarding restrictions applied to foreign nationals' bank accounts in Turkey is the accurate determination of the legal source of the transaction. The seven-business-day transaction suspension under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549, the seizure by a judge's decision pursuant to Article 128 of the CMK, the 48-hour account suspension under Article 128/A of the CMK, and transaction restrictions arising from banks' know-your-customer obligations are not subject to the same legal consequences.

Therefore, the documents obtained from the bank, transaction dates, public prosecutor's office or judgeship decisions, the source of wire transfers, and the customer's identity/KYC documents must be examined comprehensively. Especially in cases involving international wire transfers, transfers from corporate accounts to personal accounts, crypto-asset transactions, or the inflow of funds into Turkey for investment purposes, it is critical that documents explaining the source of funds are systematically prepared from the outset.

For other matters within the scope of immigration and foreigners law, our immigration law service page; for contact information our contact page you may review.

Author Information

Attorney Batın YILMAZ
Istanbul Bar Association Bar Registry No: 77008

Compliance Statement with TBB Professional Rules and Advertising Prohibition

This content has been prepared solely for general legal informational purposes. It does not constitute advertising, solicitation, acquisition of clients, referral, a claim of professional superiority, or a guarantee of legal outcome directed at any person or institution.

In the preparation of this content, the Attorneys' Law No. 1136, the Union of Turkish Bar Associations Professional Rules, and Union of Turkish Bar Associations Regulation on Prohibition of Advertising provisions have been observed. The explanations herein do not substitute for legal opinion or legal consultancy provided regarding a specific dispute. Each case must be evaluated separately within the framework of its own factual circumstances, documents, current legislation, and the assessment of competent authorities.

Communication and Legal Information

Attorney Batın YILMAZ
Istanbul Bar Association Bar Registry No: 77008

Address: Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı, Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133, Beylikdüzü / İstanbul
Phone: +90 532 669 34 90
Alternative Phone: +90 532 732 34 90
E-mail: info@batinyilmaz.av.tr

This contact section is provided solely for the purpose of sharing contact information and does not carry any intention of advertising, solicitation, client acquisition, professional superiority, or guaranteeing any legal outcome.