A Deal That Went Wrong, or Criminal Fraud? where Turkish law draws the line under TCK 157

TCK 157 defines fraud as deceiving a person by deceitful conduct and, to the loss of that person or of another, obtaining a benefit for oneself or for a third party. The sentence is one to five years' imprisonment together with a judicial fine of up to five thousand days. Three elements must be present at once, and a complaint describing an unpaid invoice ordinarily establishes none of them.

The element that decides most commercial files is sequence. The deceitful conduct has to have come first, and it has to be the reason the money moved. Where a supplier took payment for goods it intended to ship and then could not, where a partner drew money from a venture that later failed, or where a buyer stopped paying after delivery, the conduct complained of is non-performance and it occurred after the transfer. That belongs to the civil court and the enforcement office.

The second element is that someone was actually deceived. A counterparty that ran its own checks, negotiated terms, took security, or went on trading for months after learning the facts is not easily described as a person misled into paying. The third is that the benefit passed because of the deception rather than alongside it. All three are answered from documents that already exist, which is why a written response filed during the investigation carries more weight here than in most criminal files.

The complaint is written by the complainant, and the article named in it does not bind the prosecutor. Four provisions sit close together, and which one the file settles on moves the exposure by years.

TCK 159 is the provision most often missed. Where the money was genuinely owed and the argument is about how it was recovered, this is the article that fits. It is prosecuted only on complaint, and under TCK 73 the complainant has six months from the day they learned of the act and of the person responsible.

TCK 155 is a different offence altogether. It covers property whose possession was handed to you for safekeeping or for a defined use, and which you then dealt with outside that purpose or denied having received: consignment stock, a vehicle left with a partner, funds transferred for a named purchase.

The movement can also run the other way. TCK 158/1-h places ordinary fraud in the qualified band where it was committed by a trader, a company manager or a person acting for a company during commercial activity. Between two companies that paragraph is often available on the face of the complaint, and it lifts the range to three to ten years. TCK 158/3 adds a further increase of one half where three or more people acted together.

Under CMK 160 the prosecutor starts investigating as soon as they learn of circumstances suggesting an offence, and is required to gather the evidence in your favour as well as against you. Little about that stage announces itself. The first many people hear of a complaint is a summons to give a statement, or a question at passport control.

An indictment may be filed only where the evidence collected amounts to sufficient suspicion that the offence was committed (CMK 170/2). Where it does not, CMK 172 requires a decision that there is no ground for prosecution. That decision is served on the complainant, who then has two weeks to object to the sulh ceza judgeship at the seat of the ağır ceza court for the prosecutor's district (CMK 173/1). If that objection is refused, the same act cannot be prosecuted again unless new evidence sufficient to found a case emerges and a sulh ceza judge so decides (CMK 172/2).

What a foreign national feels first is usually the restriction rather than the charge. Not leaving the country is the first judicial control measure listed in CMK 109/3, imposed in place of remand; the same article lets the judge fix a security payment (109/3-f) and a separate security for the victim's rights (109/3-h). A ban imposed while a commercial complaint is examined can outlast the reason for it unless it is challenged and reviewed, which is set out on the page on travel bans during a criminal case. Where company accounts are pulled into the file, the banking side runs on its own timetable — see frozen accounts and economic crime.

Mediation applies to TCK 157. CMK 253/1-b-8 lists fraud under article 157 within the scope of uzlaştırma, whether or not the offence is complaint-dependent; qualified fraud under TCK 158 is not listed. An offer must be answered within seven days or it is deemed refused (253/4), and the mediator has thirty days to conclude, which the bureau may extend twice by up to twenty days each (253/12). Where agreement is reached and the undertaking is performed in a single payment, the prosecutor issues a decision not to prosecute; where performance is deferred or paid in instalments, the opening of the case is deferred instead (253/19). The procedure is described on the page on criminal mediation.

Repayment reduces rather than ends. Under TCK 168, full compensation of the loss after the offence is complete but before prosecution begins takes up to two thirds off the sentence, and up to one half where it comes after prosecution begins and before judgment. Partial payment counts only with the victim's consent (168/4).

Withdrawal is the one most people assume. TCK 157 carries no complaint requirement, so a complainant who loses interest does not by that alone end the file. TCK 159 and TCK 155/1 are prosecuted on complaint, and there TCK 73/4 means withdrawal drops the case. Which article the indictment finally names, and what the qualified forms and effective remorse do to the range once it is filed, is set out on the page on fraud and its qualified forms in Türkiye.