

Can a foreign investor’s company shares be frozen during a Turkish criminal investigation? Learn when company shares may be seized, what evidence is required, whether the company can continue operating, and how foreign shareholders can challenge an asset restriction.
Yes. A foreign investor’s shares in a Turkish company can potentially become subject to a seizure or asset restriction during a criminal investigation.
However, the fact that a prosecutor is investigating a foreign shareholder does not automatically authorize unrestricted interference with the investor’s company shares.
Under Article 128 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code, company shares owned by a suspect or defendant are expressly among the assets that may be seized when the statutory requirements are satisfied. The provision requires strong suspicion based on concrete evidence concerning both the commission of a qualifying offence and the connection between the relevant assets and proceeds derived from that offence.
For foreign investors, the critical questions are therefore:
Yes.
Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly includes a suspect’s or defendant’s shares in a company in which that person is a shareholder among the assets potentially subject to seizure.
The same provision also covers assets including:
Company shares are therefore not immune from criminal protective measures merely because they represent an investment in a legal entity.
No.
The decisive issue is not whether the shareholder is Turkish or foreign.
A foreign investor holding shares in a Turkish company can potentially be affected by Turkish criminal-procedure measures where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Foreign ownership does not itself create immunity from an asset seizure.
Equally, however, foreign nationality is not itself evidence that the shares are connected with criminal activity.
No.
Opening a criminal investigation does not automatically satisfy the requirements for seizure under Article 128.
The statutory framework requires strong suspicion based on concrete evidence concerning the relevant offence and the criminal origin of the assets.
Accordingly:
Investigation exists
does not automatically mean:
Company shares can be frozen.
The legal requirements for the protective measure must separately be satisfied.
Not necessarily.
This distinction is important.
In practice, prosecutors can seek protective measures during an investigation, but the investor should obtain and examine the actual legal decision underlying the restriction.
The file should establish:
Foreign investors should therefore avoid relying only on statements such as:
“The prosecutor froze my company.”
The actual procedural decision must be examined.
Article 128 establishes significant evidentiary requirements.
There must be concrete evidence supporting strong suspicion concerning both the offence under investigation and the relationship between the property and criminal proceeds.
This second component can become particularly important.
An investor may be suspected of an offence while shares purchased years earlier with legitimate money have no demonstrated relationship with alleged criminal proceeds.
The two issues should not automatically be treated as identical.
This can provide an important basis for challenging the measure.
Constitutional Court materials include a case in which an asset seizure was lifted after financial analysis failed to establish concrete findings demonstrating that the relevant property had been obtained through the alleged criminal activity.
The underlying court distinguished suspicion concerning the offence from the separate requirement concerning the criminal origin of the assets.
This distinction can be crucial for foreign investors.
For example:
Allegation: Fraud committed in 2025.
Shares: Purchased in 2018 using documented employment and business income.
The investor may seek to demonstrate that the shares cannot reasonably be treated as proceeds of the later alleged offence.
A complete acquisition history should be prepared.
Useful evidence can include:
The investor should establish:
Source of money → payment → acquisition of shares → continued ownership.
The investor should preserve:
This can help establish when and how the investor acquired the shares.
The share acquisition file becomes particularly important.
Evidence may include:
The objective is to demonstrate a genuine acquisition rather than a transaction designed to conceal ownership.
Yes.
A share transfer made shortly before or during a criminal investigation can receive close scrutiny if authorities suspect that the transfer was intended to hide assets or prevent enforcement.
The Constitutional Court has examined a case involving allegations that company shares had been transferred through a simulated transaction. It concluded, on the particular facts, that the authorities’ assessment of the share transfer was not arbitrary and found no violation of the right to property.
Accordingly, timing and commercial reality can matter considerably.
Not necessarily.
A transfer to:
may receive additional scrutiny if authorities believe that beneficial ownership did not genuinely change.
A formal transfer does not necessarily prevent authorities from investigating whether the transaction was genuine.
Potentially.
Article 128 expressly contemplates seizure of identified assets even where qualifying property is in another person’s possession.
However, third-party ownership and good faith can create important factual and legal questions.
The investor should be able to prove genuine ownership, acquisition date, purchase price and source of funds.
Not necessarily.
This distinction is extremely important.
Seizure of a shareholder’s shares and appointment of a trustee to company management are legally different protective measures.
Constitutional Court materials expressly distinguish seizure of a person’s company shares under Article 128 from the separate company-management mechanism under Article 133.
Therefore:
Share seizure ≠ automatic seizure of the entire company.
Potentially, yes.
A restriction on one shareholder’s shares does not automatically mean that the company must cease business.
Depending on the measure, the company may continue:
However, the exact effect depends on the wording and scope of the decision.
A valid seizure measure can restrict the shareholder’s ability to dispose of the affected shares.
Attempting to circumvent the measure through an artificial sale, transfer or nominee arrangement can create additional legal problems.
Once a restriction exists, any proposed share transaction should be reviewed carefully.
Not as a method of defeating an existing seizure.
A legitimate corporate restructuring and an attempt to frustrate a criminal protective measure are fundamentally different situations.
Investors should avoid:
Potentially.
The investor should examine whether the decision concerns only ownership and transfer of the shares or extends to associated rights, receivables or other assets.
Dividend entitlements can create separate questions depending on the wording and legal scope of the measure.
This requires examination of the particular measure.
Seizure of shares should not automatically be assumed to have exactly the same legal consequences as appointment of a trustee or transfer of company management.
The decision must therefore be reviewed to determine how:
are affected.
Potentially, but this is a separate and more extensive mechanism.
Turkish criminal procedure contains provisions permitting appointment of a trustee to company management under specified conditions.
Constitutional Court materials emphasize that trustee appointment affects the company as a whole, whereas Article 128 share seizure can target the individual shareholder’s ownership interest.
The legal conditions should therefore not be conflated.
This requires careful analysis.
Suppose a Turkish company has three shareholders:
If the investigation concerns only Investor A, the legal basis for interfering with the separate property rights of Investors B and C must be examined independently.
A criminal investigation against one shareholder should not automatically be treated as proof that every other shareholder’s independently owned shares represent criminal proceeds.
Good faith can become especially important where the investor acquired shares from someone who later became the subject of a criminal investigation.
The investor should preserve:
The investor may need to demonstrate that the transaction was a genuine commercial acquisition rather than a simulated transfer designed to conceal assets.
Yes.
A seizure or transfer restriction can prevent or significantly complicate:
If an M&A transaction is already pending, counterparties should carefully review closing conditions and contractual obligations.
Potentially.
A share seizure can affect:
The company should immediately review major financing agreements if a significant shareholder’s shares become subject to criminal protective measures.
Potentially, yes.
The available remedy depends on the exact decision and procedural stage.
Possible arguments can include:
The challenge should address the actual legal basis rather than merely asserting that the investor is foreign or commercially reputable.
Yes.
Source-of-funds documentation can be particularly powerful where the issue is whether the shares were acquired through criminal proceeds.
For example:
2019: Investor sells property abroad.
2020: Sale proceeds enter investor’s bank account.
2020: Investor transfers USD 1 million to Turkey.
2020: Investor purchases company shares.
2025: Criminal investigation begins concerning unrelated transactions.
The historical financial trail may help demonstrate that the shares pre-date and are economically independent from the alleged offence.
Potentially.
If authorities seek to preserve assets allegedly representing criminal proceeds, the economic scope of the measure can become relevant to proportionality.
For example:
Alleged criminal proceeds: TRY 5 million.
Foreign investor’s company shares: TRY 150 million.
The relationship between the alleged proceeds and the assets restricted should be carefully examined.
Protective measures can continue during criminal proceedings, but duration remains relevant.
A measure that was justified at the beginning of an investigation may require reassessment as the case develops.
Relevant questions include:
No automatic equation should be made between criminal accusation and criminal origin of property.
Constitutional Court materials demonstrate that courts must examine whether there are concrete findings linking the relevant assets with alleged criminal proceeds. In one case, the underlying court lifted the measure because such a connection could not be established despite suspicion regarding the alleged offence itself.
Determine exactly what has been restricted.
Establish who requested and who ordered the measure.
Article 128 is not a general unlimited asset-freezing mechanism.
Determine when the shares were acquired.
Collect the share purchase agreement and payment records.
Trace the money used to acquire the shares.
Determine whether management, banking or contracts are affected.
Check loan and shareholder agreements.
Do not alter share ledgers, resolutions or historical documentation.
Assess objection, lifting or modification procedures applicable to the particular decision.
A foreign shareholder facing a criminal asset restriction should never attempt to hide ownership.
Avoid:
Such actions can materially worsen the investor’s legal position.
Yes. Article 128 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code expressly includes shares held by a suspect or defendant in a company among assets potentially subject to seizure when the statutory requirements are satisfied.
No. The statutory evidentiary requirements for the protective measure must also be satisfied.
They may become subject to a measure, but the acquisition date and legitimate source of the purchase money can provide important grounds for challenging the alleged connection with criminal proceeds.
No. Seizure of an individual shareholder’s shares under Article 128 is legally distinct from appointment of a trustee to company management.
Potentially, yes. The effect depends on the exact scope of the decision.
A valid seizure can restrict disposal of the affected shares. Attempts to circumvent the measure can create additional legal risks.
Potentially. Genuine ownership, good faith, acquisition history and source-of-funds evidence can be highly relevant.
Potentially. Constitutional Court materials include a case in which the underlying court removed an asset seizure because concrete findings connecting the assets with the alleged criminal activity were lacking.
Yes. Authorities may examine whether the transfer was genuine or designed to conceal assets. The Constitutional Court has addressed a case involving alleged simulated transfers of company shares.
The strongest evidence will often be a complete historical chain demonstrating when the shares were acquired, how much was paid, where the purchase money originated and why the acquisition was a genuine commercial investment.
A criminal investigation involving a foreign shareholder does not automatically mean that the investor’s company shares can be permanently or arbitrarily restricted.
The legal analysis should distinguish between the alleged offence, the origin of the shares, the investor’s source of funds, seizure of the individual shareholding and measures affecting the company itself.
Where shares were acquired through legitimate funds, particularly before the alleged criminal activity, historical banking and corporate evidence can become central to challenging the measure.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign investors, shareholders and foreign-owned companies with criminal asset measures, company-share seizures, financial investigations, source-of-funds disputes and challenges to restrictions affecting investments in Turkey.
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in examining seizure decisions, reconstructing share-acquisition transactions, preparing source-of-funds evidence and protecting foreign shareholders’ property and corporate rights during Turkish investigations.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey
This article is intended for general information and does not constitute legal advice. The legality and scope of a company-share seizure depend on the alleged offence, ownership structure, source of funds, evidence in the investigation and the specific protective measure ordered in the individual case.