Bank Account Used by Another Person for Fraud in Turkey: Can the Owner Be Convicted? — 2026 Guide

A foreign national may discover that their Turkish bank account has been used by a friend, business partner, employee, employer, relative or online acquaintance to receive money connected to an alleged fraud.

The account owner may never have spoken to the victim. They may not have created the fraudulent advertisement, made the telephone call or sent the messages used to deceive the complainant.

Nevertheless, because the alleged fraud proceeds entered an account registered in their name, the account owner may become a suspect in a Turkish criminal investigation.

The critical question is:

Can the owner of the bank account be convicted even if another person actually committed the fraud?

Potentially, depending on the evidence and the account owner’s individual role. But ownership of the receiving bank account should not automatically be treated as proof that the account owner knowingly participated in the fraud.

The investigation should determine who deceived the victim, why the account was provided, who actually controlled it, who moved or withdrew the money, whether the owner received a financial benefit, and—most importantly—what the account owner knew and intended.

This distinction is particularly important in 2026 because Turkish authorities are actively warning about bank-account and IBAN-sharing schemes. Official prosecutorial materials describe how fraudsters obtain other people’s bank accounts to receive criminal proceeds and conceal the identities of the people actually organizing the fraud.

Why Does the Account Owner Become a Suspect?

The reason is usually straightforward.

Suppose a victim is deceived through an online marketplace.

The victim sends 150,000 TRY to a Turkish bank account.

When police trace the payment, the account belongs to a foreign national.

The first evidentiary link therefore becomes:

Victim → Foreign Account Owner

Police may understandably investigate the account owner.

But the complete transaction may actually look like:

Fraudster → Victim → Foreign Account Owner’s Bank Account → Third Person → Cash or Cryptocurrency

Determining criminal responsibility requires examination of the entire chain.

Bank Account Ownership Is Important Evidence, but It Is Not the Whole Case

The fact that the account belongs to the accused is relevant.

It can establish where the money went.

It does not necessarily establish:

• Who deceived the victim
• Who provided the IBAN to the victim
• Who controlled mobile banking
• Who transferred the money onward
• Who withdrew the cash
• Who received the ultimate financial benefit
• What the account owner knew

Those questions can be decisive.

Can the Account Owner Be Convicted Without Personally Defrauding the Victim?

Depending on the evidence, criminal responsibility may extend beyond the person who personally communicated with and deceived the victim.

Turkish criminal law recognizes different forms of participation in criminal conduct. Therefore, the investigation may examine whether the account owner knowingly participated in the execution of the scheme or intentionally assisted another person’s offence.

But there is a fundamental difference between:

knowingly providing an account to facilitate fraud

and

having an account used by another person without knowing its criminal purpose.

The defense should focus on evidence capable of distinguishing these situations.

“Another Person Used My Account” Is Not Enough by Itself

Simply telling the police:

“My friend used my account.”

does not automatically resolve the investigation.

Police and prosecutors are likely to ask:

• Who is the friend?
• Why did they need your account?
• When did you give them access?
• Did they have your bank card?
• Did they know your PIN?
• Did they have your mobile banking password?
• Did you know money would enter the account?
• Did you receive a commission?
• Did you monitor the transactions?
• What happened after the money arrived?

The explanation should therefore be supported by objective evidence wherever possible.

Knowledge Is One of the Most Important Questions

Imagine two different cases.

Scenario One: Account Used Without the Owner’s Knowledge

A foreigner discovers unauthorized transactions after receiving security notifications from the bank.

The foreigner immediately:

• Contacts the bank
• Blocks digital banking
• Reports the unauthorized transactions
• Changes passwords
• Preserves security alerts

That presents one factual situation.

Scenario Two: Account Deliberately Provided for Commission

Another person says:

“Let me use your bank account for payments. You will receive 10% of everything that comes in.”

The account owner provides:

• IBAN
• Bank card
• PIN
• Mobile banking access

The account receives payments from multiple unrelated people.

The owner keeps commissions.

That presents a substantially different evidentiary situation.

Intent Must Be Examined Individually

The prosecution should establish the criminal responsibility of the particular defendant rather than merely identifying the registered bank-account holder.

The Constitutional Court’s description of the presumption of innocence requires a person facing criminal accusations to be treated as innocent until guilt is established through the judicial process.

Accordingly, the defense should ask:

What evidence demonstrates that the account owner knew the money came from fraud?

That question can become central.

Who Actually Deceived the Victim?

This should be identified precisely.

The fraudulent communication may have occurred through:

• WhatsApp
• Telegram
• Instagram
• Facebook
• Online marketplace
• Fake website
• Telephone call
• Email
• Fake investment platform

Investigators should determine which person controlled the account or telephone number used to communicate with the victim.

If the bank-account owner had no communication with the victim, that fact can be important, although it does not necessarily end the inquiry into possible participation or assistance.

Who Gave the Victim the IBAN?

This can be a particularly important evidentiary question.

Suppose the victim receives a WhatsApp message:

“Send 75,000 TRY to this IBAN.”

The IBAN belongs to the foreign suspect.

But who actually sent that message?

Investigators may need to examine:

• Telephone number
• WhatsApp account
• Device
• SIM card
• IP information
• Seized phones
• Complete conversation

IBAN ownership does not necessarily prove authorship of the message containing the IBAN.

Who Controlled Mobile Banking?

Account ownership and account operation are different factual questions.

Potential evidence may include:

• Banking login information
• Device information
• Authentication records
• Security messages
• Transaction confirmation information
• Telephone records
• Seized devices

If another person had access to the account, objective technical evidence may help determine who actually conducted the disputed transactions.

What If the Owner Gave Someone the Bank Card?

This can increase criminal exposure.

Investigators will likely ask why the owner voluntarily provided:

• Bank card
• PIN
• Mobile banking credentials
• Verification codes

Official Turkish authorities strongly warn against giving third parties access to personal bank accounts, cards or digital banking credentials because such accounts are frequently used to receive or transfer fraud proceeds.

However, an official preventive warning should not be treated as a substitute for proving the particular criminal offence alleged against an individual defendant.

What If the Account Owner Received a Commission?

Commission payments can become significant evidence.

Suppose the account owner receives 5% of every payment passing through the account.

Investigators may ask:

• Why was the commission paid?
• How many transactions occurred?
• Were the senders unrelated?
• Why could the other person not use their own account?
• Did the account owner question the arrangement?
• Were payments immediately withdrawn?

Official 2026 prosecutorial materials specifically warn about schemes offering commissions or easy income in return for bank-account access.

A commission does not automatically answer every element of the charged offence, but it can substantially affect the evidentiary assessment.

What If the Account Owner Received No Money?

Absence of personal financial benefit may support the defense in some factual settings, but it does not automatically eliminate every form of possible criminal responsibility.

Investigators may still examine whether the owner knowingly made the account available to facilitate the offence.

Therefore:

No commission ≠ automatic acquittal.

But equally:

Account ownership ≠ automatic conviction.

The complete evidence matters.

What If the Owner Was Also Deceived?

This is particularly important in cases involving foreigners, students and job seekers.

The account owner may have been told:

“We are an international company and need a local payment representative.”

or:

“My account is temporarily frozen. Let my customer pay you.”

or:

“You only need to receive the payment and forward it.”

The account owner may later discover that the money came from fraud victims.

Official 2026 materials specifically warn that young people and others may be recruited through promises of income and persuaded to provide bank accounts that are later used to transfer criminal proceeds.

If the owner was deceived, preserve the evidence showing how the arrangement began.

Preserve the Recruitment Messages

Potentially important evidence includes:

• Job advertisement
• WhatsApp messages
• Telegram messages
• Emails
• Website
• Employment offer
• Voice messages
• Identity documents sent by the recruiter
• Payment instructions

The question is not merely what the account owner says today.

The stronger question may be:

What did the communications show the account owner was being told at the time?

What If the Account Was Hacked?

If the owner did not voluntarily provide access, preserve evidence of unauthorized access immediately.

This may include:

• Unknown-device notifications
• Password-reset alerts
• SIM replacement information
• Bank security emails
• Authentication messages
• Unauthorized transaction notifications

The owner should also preserve evidence of when the bank was notified.

A contemporaneous hacking report can be substantially more persuasive than an unsupported claim raised only after police contact.

What If Another Person Had the Owner’s Phone?

A seized phone may become important.

Investigators may examine:

• Banking applications
• Messages
• Email
• Social-media accounts
• Cryptocurrency applications
• Security notifications

But possession or ownership of a device does not automatically prove who performed every action on it.

The investigation should consider actual device access and the surrounding evidence.

ATM CCTV Can Be Critical

Suppose the victim transfers money at 13:00.

At 13:20 the money is withdrawn from an ATM.

The account owner says:

“I did not withdraw it. The person using my account had my card.”

ATM CCTV may become highly important.

The defense should identify:

• ATM location
• Date
• Exact time
• Withdrawal amount
• Relevant camera footage

Because surveillance recordings can eventually be overwritten, preservation may need to be requested promptly.

What If the Account Owner Personally Withdrew the Money?

This creates an additional evidentiary link.

Police may ask:

• Why did you withdraw the money?
• Who instructed you?
• Who received the cash?
• Where did you meet?
• Did you keep a percentage?
• Are there messages proving the instruction?

If the owner claims that the cash was handed to someone else, the defense should identify objective evidence supporting that explanation.

What If the Money Was Immediately Transferred to Another Account?

Create a precise timeline.

For example:

14:02 — 80,000 TRY received

14:05 — WhatsApp instruction received

14:08 — 78,000 TRY transferred to Account B

14:09 — 2,000 TRY remained in account

Investigators will likely examine both the outgoing transaction and the communication surrounding it.

Rapid Movement of Money Can Attract Additional Scrutiny

Fraud schemes frequently use multiple accounts to make the money trail more difficult to follow.

A March 2026 prosecution announcement concerning alleged banking fraud described suspects moving victims’ funds through different accounts and stated that investigators evaluated victim statements, bank movements, communications records and digital evidence together.

Accordingly, investigators may examine the entire chain rather than only the first receiving account.

What If the Money Was Converted Into Cryptocurrency?

Cryptocurrency can add another layer of evidence.

Investigators may examine:

• Exchange accounts
• Wallet addresses
• Transaction hashes
• Bank-to-exchange transfers
• Withdrawal information

The defense should still distinguish between:

financial movement

and

proof of who knowingly controlled and directed that movement.

A wallet address by itself does not necessarily identify a human user.

Can the Account Owner Be Accused of Aggravated Fraud?

Potentially.

Depending on the method and facts, technology- or banking-related fraud may be investigated under the aggravated-fraud provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code.

Current 2026 enforcement illustrates that prosecutors may use Article 158 in organized digital banking fraud investigations and evaluate banking, communications and digital evidence together.

The account owner’s precise role must nevertheless be determined individually.

Could the Owner Be Considered an Accomplice Rather Than the Main Fraudster?

Potentially, depending on the evidence.

A person does not necessarily need to be the individual who personally spoke to the victim for participation questions to arise.

The legal analysis may examine whether the account owner knowingly facilitated the offence and the nature of that participation.

Important evidence can include:

• Prior agreement
• Communications with the principal offender
• Repeated transactions
• Commission
• Account access
• Cash withdrawals
• Concealment
• Knowledge of the source of money

The legal characterization depends on the proven facts.

Could Money-Laundering Issues Also Arise?

Potentially.

Official Turkish warnings expressly connect third-party account use with both fraud and laundering risks.

Particular scrutiny may arise where funds are:

• Split between accounts
• Withdrawn rapidly
• Converted into cryptocurrency
• Sent abroad
• Passed through multiple intermediaries

Whether a separate offence is established depends on its own statutory elements and the evidence concerning the account holder.

A Separate Rule May Apply When Acting for Another Person

Official Ministry of Trade guidance also points to Article 15 of Law No. 5549 concerning transactions carried out in one’s own name but on behalf of another without the required written notification to the financial institution.

Therefore, even where the evidence does not establish that the account owner personally deceived a fraud victim, allowing another person to conduct financial transactions through the account can create separate legal issues that should be examined.

What Evidence Does the Prosecution Usually Examine?

A modern bank-account fraud investigation may involve:

• Victim statements
• Bank statements
• ATM records
• CCTV
• WhatsApp
• Telegram
• SMS
• Email
• Telephone records
• IP information
• Mobile banking information
• Seized phones
• Cryptocurrency records
• Witness statements

No single category should automatically be assumed to answer every question.

Bank Records Show Movement, Not Necessarily Knowledge

Bank statements can establish that:

money entered Account A and later went to Account B.

But a bank statement alone may not establish why the owner believed the money had arrived.

That may require examining:

• Messages
• Contracts
• Employment arrangements
• Business records
• Relationship with the other person

Financial evidence and evidence of state of mind should therefore be analyzed together.

Screenshots Should Be Examined Carefully

The complainant may produce screenshots showing an account name, profile photograph or conversation.

The defense should examine:

• Original source
• Complete conversation
• Underlying telephone number
• Account ownership
• Actual user
• Whether messages were cropped
• Whether another person controlled the account

A screenshot showing the account owner’s name does not automatically prove the account owner authored every communication.

IP Evidence Does Not Automatically Identify the Account Owner

IP evidence can connect digital activity with a technical connection.

But issues may include:

• Shared Wi-Fi
• Dynamic IP
• CGNAT
• Corporate networks
• VPN
• Exact timestamp
• Time zone

The prosecution should avoid collapsing:

IP address → subscriber → actual user

into a single assumption.

A 2026 Court of Cassation Decision Shows Why Complete Investigation Matters

In a February 24, 2026 aggravated-fraud decision, the Court of Cassation overturned a conviction because further investigation was required concerning banking information, disputed documents, signature evidence and the underlying commercial relationship.

The Court concluded that the defendant’s legal position should be determined only after the relevant facts were investigated sufficiently to establish the truth without unresolved doubt.

Although the factual circumstances differed from a bank-account lending case, the evidentiary principle is important:

Criminal responsibility should be determined from a sufficiently investigated factual record rather than from an incomplete inference.

What If the Account Owner Never Knew About the Fraud?

Then evidence supporting lack of knowledge becomes particularly important.

Potential evidence may include:

• Messages giving a legitimate explanation
• Fake employment offer
• Contract
• Invoice
• Security alerts
• Unauthorized-access records
• Immediate report to bank
• Immediate police complaint
• Lack of communication with victims
• Another person’s control of the card or device

The defense should build a chronology from objective evidence.

What If the Owner Suspected Something Was Wrong but Continued?

This can make the case more difficult.

Warning signs may include:

• Multiple unrelated people sending money
• Large unexplained payments
• Requests for immediate cash withdrawal
• Requests to use cryptocurrency
• Commission payments
• Requests to conceal the arrangement

The prosecution may rely on such circumstances when arguing knowledge or intentional participation.

The defense should therefore address the actual facts rather than relying only on the formal ownership of the account.

What If There Were Many Fraud Victims?

Multiple transactions can materially change the evidentiary picture.

Investigators may compare:

• Number of victims
• Frequency of payments
• Total amount
• Repeated transfers
• Commission pattern
• Same ultimate recipients
• Same withdrawal locations

Repeated activity may make the account-control and knowledge questions especially important.

Can the Bank Account Be Frozen?

Potentially.

If an account is restricted, determine:

• Which authority imposed the measure
• Which amount is affected
• Whether the entire account is blocked
• Investigation number
• Legal basis
• Whether the measure concerns only disputed funds

A bank-account restriction is an investigative or protective issue and is not itself proof of guilt.

What Should the Account Owner Do After Police Contact?

Do not delete evidence and do not invent explanations.

Obtain:

• Complete bank statements
• Disputed transaction details
• Communications with the person using the account
• Security notifications
• ATM information
• Relevant employment or commercial documents

Then reconstruct the transaction chronologically.

Do Not Coordinate Stories With the Actual User

If another person used the account, do not contact them for the purpose of creating a common false explanation.

Do not ask them to:

• Delete messages
• Change conversations
• Destroy devices
• Fabricate contracts
• Create false invoices

Existing evidence should be preserved.

Do Not Factory-Reset the Phone

The account owner’s phone may contain evidence showing:

• What the other person said
• Why the account was provided
• When the owner learned of the fraud
• Security alerts
• Whether another device accessed the account

Destroying that information can seriously damage the defense.

First 24 Hours: Practical Defense Steps

When a foreigner discovers that another person used their Turkish bank account for alleged fraud:

1. Preserve the complete bank statement.
2. Identify every disputed transaction.
3. Preserve all messages with the actual account user.
4. Do not delete WhatsApp, Telegram or email.
5. Determine who gave the IBAN to the victim.
6. Determine who controlled mobile banking.
7. Identify who had the bank card.
8. Preserve security alerts.
9. Identify outgoing transfers.
10. Identify ATM withdrawals.
11. Request preservation of relevant CCTV where necessary.
12. Preserve job or commercial documents explaining why access was given.
13. Record any commission received.
14. Preserve evidence showing if the owner was deceived.
15. Do not coordinate evidence with other suspects.
16. Do not transfer remaining suspicious funds without appropriate banking/legal handling.
17. Determine whether the account is frozen.
18. Identify the criminal investigation number.
19. Review the evidence before giving speculative explanations.
20. Obtain legal assistance promptly where criminal exposure exists.

20 Questions That Can Determine the Account Owner’s Criminal Liability

A defense should examine:

1. Who actually deceived the victim?
2. Did the account owner know the victim?
3. Who provided the IBAN to the victim?
4. Why did the owner allow another person to use the account?
5. What explanation did the other person give?
6. Who controlled mobile banking?
7. Who possessed the bank card?
8. Who knew the PIN?
9. Who received authentication codes?
10. Who transferred the money?
11. Who withdrew cash?
12. What does ATM CCTV show?
13. Did the owner receive a commission?
14. How many transactions occurred?
15. Were there multiple victims?
16. Did the owner receive any ultimate financial benefit?
17. Was the owner recruited through a fake job or other deception?
18. Did the owner report suspicious activity when discovered?
19. What do the complete digital communications show?
20. What objective evidence proves knowledge and intentional participation?

2026 Current Legal Position

Bank-account and IBAN misuse remains a significant focus of Turkish enforcement activity in 2026.

Official prosecutorial awareness campaigns explain that fraudsters may persuade individuals to provide bank accounts, cards or account-access information so that fraud proceeds can be transferred through accounts that conceal the identities of the organizers. Authorities particularly warn against commission-based and “temporary account” arrangements.

Recent 2026 fraud investigations also show prosecutors examining victim statements, bank movements, communications and digital evidence together when determining the roles of suspects.

At the same time, criminal liability must be individualized. The constitutional presumption of innocence remains applicable until guilt is established through the judicial process.

Accordingly, a defensible analysis should follow the complete evidentiary chain:

Account ownership → reason access was provided → victim communication → receipt of money → actual account control → withdrawal or transfer → financial benefit → knowledge → intent → individual participation.

The name on the bank account is important.

It should not be the end of the investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can I be convicted if someone else used my Turkish bank account for fraud?

Potentially, depending on your individual participation, knowledge, intent and the evidence. Account ownership alone does not answer all of those questions.

2. What if I never spoke to the fraud victim?

That can be important. Investigators should identify who actually carried out the deceptive communications. However, lack of direct victim contact does not automatically exclude every possible form of criminal participation.

3. What if my friend used my account without telling me the money came from fraud?

Preserve every message showing what your friend told you. Evidence concerning your knowledge at the time of the transactions can be critical.

4. What if I received a commission?

A commission can increase investigative scrutiny, particularly when combined with repeated suspicious transfers. Official 2026 warnings specifically identify paid account-use arrangements as a serious criminal risk.

5. What if another person had my bank card and PIN?

Preserve evidence showing who had the card, when they had it and why. ATM CCTV and banking records may help determine who performed particular transactions.

6. Can I still be investigated if I received none of the fraud money personally?

Yes. Lack of personal benefit can be relevant but does not automatically prevent an investigation into whether the account was knowingly provided to facilitate the offence.

7. What if my account was hacked rather than voluntarily shared?

Immediately preserve security notifications, password-reset information, unauthorized login alerts and proof of your report to the bank.

8. Can my bank account be frozen during the investigation?

Potentially. The appropriate response depends on the authority, legal basis, scope and type of restriction. A freeze is not itself a criminal conviction.

9. Should I delete messages with the person who used my account?

No. Those communications may be crucial to establishing what you knew, why the account was provided and who actually directed the transactions.

10. What is the most important defense question?

The central question is usually not merely whose name appears on the account, but whether lawful and reliable evidence proves that the account owner knowingly and intentionally participated in or assisted the criminal conduct alleged.

Criminal Defense for Foreign Bank Account Owners Accused of Fraud in Turkey

When another person uses a foreigner’s Turkish bank account to receive alleged fraud proceeds, the investigation can quickly expand into bank records, ATM CCTV, WhatsApp conversations, mobile banking data, seized phones, IP records and cryptocurrency transactions.

The defense should therefore move beyond the simple fact of account ownership.

The key questions are:

Who deceived the victim? Who gave the victim the IBAN? Who actually controlled the account? Who transferred or withdrew the money? What did the account owner know? Did the owner receive a benefit?

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides criminal-law assistance to foreign nationals, foreign students, employees, executives, investors and foreign-owned companies whose Turkish bank accounts have allegedly been used by third parties in fraud schemes.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign clients with aggravated-fraud investigations, bank-account and IBAN allegations, frozen accounts, police and prosecutor statements, ATM evidence, WhatsApp communications, seized phones, cryptocurrency transactions and disputes concerning actual account control, knowledge and criminal intent.

Early legal assistance can be particularly important because banking records, CCTV, account-security information and digital communications may need to be identified and preserved promptly.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

This publication is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Criminal liability depends on the offence alleged, the account owner’s knowledge and intent, the extent of account access given to another person, the movement of funds and the evidence collected in the individual investigation.