Can a foreign-owned company challenge a MASAK-related bank account freeze in Turkey? Learn about the legal basis of account restrictions, prosecutor and court measures, objection procedures, evidence, proportionality and remedies available to foreign investors in 2026.

Yes. A foreign-owned company whose Turkish bank account is frozen because of a financial-crime investigation or a MASAK-related process may have legal remedies to challenge the restriction.

However, the first and most important step is to determine who actually imposed the restriction and under which legal authority.

The expression “MASAK freeze” is frequently used in practice to describe several legally different situations. A bank account may be restricted because of a MASAK analysis, a suspicious transaction report, a temporary transaction postponement mechanism, a prosecutor’s investigation, a judicial seizure order or another statutory measure.

The correct remedy therefore depends on the legal source of the restriction.

What Is MASAK?

MASAK is Turkey’s Financial Crimes Investigation Board and operates within the Ministry of Treasury and Finance.

Its responsibilities include collecting and analyzing financial information, receiving suspicious transaction reports, conducting examinations relating to money laundering and terrorist financing, requesting information and referring suspected criminal activity to competent prosecutorial authorities.

The Constitutional Court has also described MASAK’s functions as including analysis, research, examination, receipt and analysis of suspicious transaction reports, financial intelligence production and referral of suspected criminal conduct to prosecutors.

For foreign investors, a MASAK-related investigation can therefore involve substantial examination of the company’s banking and commercial activities.

Does MASAK Automatically Freeze Every Suspicious Bank Account?

No.

A suspicious transaction does not mean that the account holder has automatically committed a crime.

Banks and other regulated institutions have statutory compliance obligations. Transactions can attract scrutiny because of characteristics such as:

• Unusual transaction volumes;
• Large international transfers;
• Unexplained third-party payments;
• Rapid movement of funds;
• Transactions inconsistent with the company’s business profile;
• High-risk jurisdictions;
• Complex corporate structures;
• Unclear beneficial ownership;
• Unusual cash movements;
• Transactions potentially associated with criminal proceeds.

The existence of scrutiny must be distinguished from a final finding of criminal liability.

First Question: Who Actually Froze the Account?

Before filing an objection, the company should identify the legal source of the restriction.

Possible scenarios include:

1. Bank Compliance Restriction

The bank itself may temporarily restrict transactions while carrying out compliance checks.

2. MASAK-Related Administrative Measure

A transaction may be affected by powers arising under anti-money-laundering legislation.

3. Prosecutorial Investigation

A prosecutor may be investigating suspected money laundering, fraud, tax-related offences or another predicate offence.

4. Judicial Seizure

A judge or court may have issued an order affecting funds or accounts.

5. Other Public Authority Measure

The restriction may arise from tax collection, enforcement, sanctions, asset-freezing legislation or another legal mechanism.

These situations require different procedural responses.

Can a Foreign-Owned Company Challenge the Freeze?

Potentially, yes.

Foreign ownership does not remove a company’s right to seek legal protection against an allegedly unlawful or disproportionate interference with its assets.

A company can potentially challenge issues such as:

• Lack of sufficient legal basis;
• Incorrect identification of transactions;
• Funds belonging to legitimate commercial activity;
• Failure to establish the required suspicion;
• Excessive scope of the measure;
• Disproportionate duration;
• Continued restriction after the justification has disappeared;
• Failure to distinguish legitimate funds from allegedly suspicious funds.

The appropriate forum and procedure depend on the authority responsible for the measure.

Why Is the Legal Basis So Important?

A bank cannot simply be asked to remove every restriction that is described informally as a “MASAK block.”

If the restriction originates from a judicial or prosecutorial measure, the bank may have no authority to remove it independently.

Likewise, if the problem is merely an internal compliance review, immediately commencing proceedings against a public authority may be premature.

The legal strategy should therefore begin with identifying the underlying decision.

What Documents Should the Company Request?

The company should determine, as far as legally possible:

• Date the restriction began;
• Accounts affected;
• Amount affected;
• Authority responsible;
• Reference or investigation number;
• Whether the restriction covers all transactions;
• Whether incoming transfers remain possible;
• Whether outgoing payments are prohibited;
• Whether only a particular amount is restricted;
• Whether a prosecutor or court order exists;
• Whether additional documents have been requested.

The company’s lawyers can then identify the appropriate remedy.

What If the Bank Refuses to Explain the Reason?

Banks may be restricted in the information they can provide in certain financial-intelligence situations.

Therefore, a branch employee saying only that an account is “under MASAK review” does not necessarily provide enough information to determine the legal position.

The company may need to investigate the matter through the relevant procedural channels.

The absence of a detailed explanation from the bank should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the company committed an offence.

Can Legitimate Business Funds Be Frozen?

Potentially, depending on the legal basis and circumstances.

However, the legitimacy of the underlying commercial activity can become central to challenging the measure.

A foreign-owned company should be prepared to explain:

• Why the money was received;
• Who sent it;
• What contractual relationship existed;
• What goods or services were supplied;
• Why funds were transferred abroad;
• Why payments moved through particular companies;
• Who ultimately benefited from the transactions.

A complete commercial explanation is often more useful than simply stating that the company has done nothing wrong.

What Evidence Can Help Challenge an Account Freeze?

Useful documents can include:

1. Commercial agreements;
2. Invoices;
3. Customs documents;
4. Shipping documents;
5. Bank statements;
6. SWIFT records;
7. Accounting records;
8. Tax declarations;
9. Corporate resolutions;
10. Shareholder records;
11. Beneficial ownership documentation;
12. Loan agreements;
13. Intercompany agreements;
14. Distribution agreements;
15. Import and export documentation;
16. Proof of delivery;
17. Source-of-funds evidence.

Documents should demonstrate the economic purpose of the transactions rather than merely their formal existence.

Are Intercompany Transfers Automatically Suspicious?

No.

International corporate groups routinely make legitimate:

• Shareholder loans;
• Capital contributions;
• Management-fee payments;
• Royalty payments;
• Dividend payments;
• Procurement payments;
• Cost-sharing transfers;
• Intercompany financing.

However, complex transfers between related companies can attract additional scrutiny where their commercial basis is unclear.

Foreign companies should therefore maintain proper contracts, corporate approvals and accounting records supporting intercompany transactions.

Can Payments From the Foreign Shareholder Cause Problems?

Not necessarily.

A foreign shareholder may legitimately provide financing to a Turkish company.

However, the transaction should be properly characterized.

For example, the company should determine whether the payment represents:

• Capital;
• Shareholder loan;
• Advance;
• Payment for goods;
• Payment for services;
• Reimbursement.

Unexplained transfers into a corporate account can become more difficult to defend later.

What If the Company Receives a Very Large International Transfer?

The size of a transaction alone does not prove illegality.

Nevertheless, large transfers can lead to enhanced compliance scrutiny.

The company should be able to establish:

Sender → commercial relationship → contract → invoice → banking transfer → accounting treatment → economic purpose.

Where that chain is documented clearly, the company is in a stronger position to explain the transaction.

What If the Account Freeze Stops the Company’s Operations?

This can be highly significant.

A complete account restriction can prevent the company from paying:

• Employees;
• Taxes;
• Social security obligations;
• Suppliers;
• Rent;
• Customs charges;
• Loan instalments;
• Utilities;
• Essential operating expenses.

These consequences should be documented when challenging the continuation or scope of the measure.

The Constitutional Court has repeatedly treated money held in bank accounts as property protected by the constitutional right to property.

Can Proportionality Be Challenged?

Potentially, yes.

Measures affecting property rights must have a lawful basis and satisfy constitutional standards applicable to interference with property.

The Constitutional Court emphasizes that restrictions affecting property require a legal basis and must comply with constitutional safeguards.

Proportionality becomes particularly important where a temporary protective measure continues for a substantial period without adequate justification.

Can an Account Remain Frozen Indefinitely?

A restriction should not be assumed to be lawful merely because it was lawful when first imposed.

The justification for continuing a measure can require separate examination.

The Constitutional Court has held in the context of a prolonged bank-account restriction that protective measures affecting assets require reasonable justification and that excessive duration can impose a disproportionate burden on the property owner.

That decision arose under a different statutory framework and should not be treated as establishing an automatic time limit for every MASAK-related case. Nevertheless, it illustrates the broader constitutional importance of duration and proportionality.

Does a Long Investigation Automatically Make the Freeze Unlawful?

No.

Some complex financial investigations legitimately take time.

For example, authorities may need to examine:

• International transfers;
• Multiple companies;
• Beneficial owners;
• Foreign banking records;
• Customs documentation;
• Cryptocurrency transactions;
• Related criminal investigations.

The question is whether continued interference remains legally justified and proportionate in the circumstances.

Can Only the Suspicious Amount Be Restricted?

This depends on the legal mechanism and underlying decision.

Where the entire corporate account is affected even though only a limited transaction is questioned, the scope of the measure should be examined carefully.

The company may argue, where legally appropriate, that legitimate operational funds are unrelated to the suspected transaction.

This can be particularly important where the account contains substantial payroll or supplier funds.

Can a Company Request Partial Release of Funds?

Depending on the type of restriction, the company may seek to demonstrate why some or all funds should no longer remain restricted.

For example, evidence may show that particular funds are needed for:

• Employee salaries;
• Tax obligations;
• Mandatory social security payments;
• Customs charges;
• Essential business operations.

Whether partial release is legally available depends on the authority and legal basis responsible for the restriction.

What If the Frozen Money Belongs to Customers?

This should be documented immediately.

The company may hold money:

• On behalf of customers;
• As deposits;
• Under escrow-like arrangements;
• For specific contractual purposes.

Ownership and contractual documentation can become important when determining whether funds are actually attributable to the company or another party.

What If the Funds Are Loan Proceeds?

The company should preserve:

• Loan agreement;
• Lender identity;
• Bank transfer;
• Corporate approval;
• Repayment schedule;
• Accounting records;
• Evidence concerning the lender’s source of funds where relevant.

A properly documented commercial loan is easier to explain than an unexplained incoming transfer.

What If the Account Received Money From a Fraud Victim?

This is a common high-risk scenario.

A company may discover that money connected to alleged fraud entered its account.

The legal position can depend on:

• Whether the company knew the sender;
• Why payment was received;
• Whether goods or services were supplied;
• Whether funds were immediately transferred elsewhere;
• Whether the company retained any benefit;
• Whether directors knew about the transaction;
• Whether the account was being used by another person.

The company should preserve all records immediately.

Can the Company Directors Become Personally Involved?

Potentially.

A corporate account investigation can expand to individuals where authorities suspect that directors, managers, shareholders or beneficial owners participated in relevant transactions.

This does not mean that every foreign shareholder or director automatically becomes criminally liable.

Corporate liability, personal criminal responsibility and beneficial ownership should be analyzed separately.

Can the Foreign Shareholder’s Personal Accounts Also Be Examined?

Potentially.

Where investigators believe that corporate and personal transactions are connected, they may examine transfers involving:

• Shareholders;
• Directors;
• Managers;
• Related companies;
• Family members;
• Ultimate beneficial owners.

This makes accurate separation between company funds and personal funds especially important.

Does a MASAK Report Mean the Company Is Guilty?

No.

MASAK performs financial intelligence, analysis and examination functions and can refer suspected criminal conduct to prosecutorial authorities.

A financial intelligence report, suspicious transaction report or analysis is not equivalent to a final criminal conviction.

The company’s explanation and supporting evidence remain important.

Can a Foreign Company Challenge a Judicial Seizure Order?

Where the restriction results from a criminal-procedure seizure or another judicial measure, the applicable criminal procedural remedies must be examined.

The lawyer should obtain the relevant decision and determine:

• Issuing authority;
• Legal basis;
• Alleged offence;
• Assets covered;
• Duration;
• Available objection procedure.

A generic letter to the bank will usually not substitute for challenging the underlying judicial measure.

Can an Administrative Case Be Filed?

Potentially, where the challenged restriction is based on an administrative act.

But not every account freeze belongs before an administrative court.

If the restriction originates from a criminal investigation or judicial seizure order, the appropriate remedy may instead arise within criminal procedure.

This is why identifying the source of the restriction is the first legal step.

Can the Bank Itself Be Sued?

Potentially, but only where the bank has independent legal responsibility.

If the bank is simply implementing a binding order issued by a competent authority, litigation against the bank may not address the actual source of the restriction.

By contrast, an independent bank compliance decision may require a different analysis.

The company should avoid filing proceedings against the wrong party before identifying the legal basis.

Can the Company Request Damages for an Unlawful Freeze?

Potentially, depending on:

• Legal basis of the measure;
• Authority responsible;
• Whether the measure is later found unlawful;
• Actual financial damage;
• Causation;
• Applicable procedural remedy.

Possible losses can include business interruption, financing costs or other documented damage, but compensation is not automatic.

Can Loss of Profit Be Claimed?

This can be significantly more difficult than proving direct losses.

A company claiming that an unlawful restriction caused lost profits would generally need strong evidence showing:

• Existing contracts;
• Expected revenue;
• Cancelled orders;
• Causal connection;
• Actual operating history;
• Expenses avoided;
• Duration of disruption.

Speculative future profits are harder to establish.

Can a Bank Freeze Violate Property Rights?

Potentially.

Bank account balances constitute economic assets capable of receiving constitutional property protection. The Constitutional Court has expressly recognized money held in bank accounts as property within Article 35 of the Constitution.

However, property rights are not absolute.

Lawful restrictions can be imposed for legitimate public purposes, including the investigation and prevention of serious financial crime, provided constitutional requirements are satisfied.

Why Does Proportionality Matter?

Even where a measure pursues a legitimate objective, its impact on the property owner can still require proportionality review.

The Constitutional Court has found a property-rights violation where a bank-account restriction remained in force for more than five years without adequate justification for its continued duration.

For a foreign-owned company, relevant proportionality evidence may include:

• Duration of the freeze;
• Amount frozen;
• Company’s cooperation;
• Documents already submitted;
• Lack of continuing investigative necessity;
• Impact on employees;
• Tax liabilities;
• Operational consequences;
• Availability of less restrictive measures.

Can Foreign Ownership Be a Reason to Freeze an Account?

Foreign ownership alone does not establish money laundering or another financial crime.

A foreign-owned company may legitimately engage in substantial cross-border commerce.

However, international transactions can require additional compliance review because financial institutions must understand the source, destination and economic purpose of funds.

The company should therefore maintain especially strong documentation for cross-border transactions.

What Should a Foreign Company Do in the First 48 Hours?

1. Identify the Restriction

Determine which accounts and amounts are affected.

2. Identify the Authority

Establish whether the measure comes from the bank, MASAK-related procedures, a prosecutor, court or another authority.

3. Obtain the Reference Number

Where possible, identify the investigation or decision number.

4. Preserve Banking Records

Do not delete correspondence or transaction records.

5. Reconstruct Suspicious Transactions

Prepare a chronological transaction map.

6. Collect Commercial Evidence

Match transfers to contracts, invoices, customs records and accounting documents.

7. Identify Beneficial Owners

Make the corporate ownership structure clear.

8. Document Operational Harm

Record unpaid salaries, taxes, supplier obligations and interrupted transactions.

9. Avoid Artificial Transfers

Do not attempt to circumvent the restriction using related companies or personal accounts.

10. Determine the Correct Legal Remedy

Challenge the underlying decision rather than relying solely on repeated requests to the bank.

What Should the Transaction Explanation Look Like?

A useful transaction file should answer five questions:

Who sent the money?

Why was it sent?

What contractual relationship existed?

What happened to the money afterward?

What documents prove the explanation?

For a trading company, for example, the file might contain:

• Purchase order;
• Sales contract;
• Invoice;
• Customs declaration;
• Bill of lading;
• Bank transfer;
• Accounting entry;
• Delivery evidence.

The objective is to demonstrate commercial substance.

What Mistakes Should Foreign Companies Avoid?

Companies facing a MASAK-related account restriction should avoid:

• Creating backdated contracts;
• Altering invoices;
• Deleting messages;
• Moving funds through unrelated persons to bypass restrictions;
• Giving inconsistent explanations to different authorities;
• Allowing employees to communicate without coordination;
• Ignoring formal requests for information;
• Assuming the bank can remove a judicial restriction;
• Waiting months without determining the legal basis.

Attempts to manufacture evidence can create substantially greater legal problems than the original compliance inquiry.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a foreign-owned company challenge a MASAK-related bank account freeze in Turkey?

Potentially, yes. The correct remedy depends on whether the restriction arises from a bank compliance process, an administrative measure, prosecutorial investigation or judicial order.

2. Does a MASAK investigation mean the company committed money laundering?

No. Financial intelligence analysis or suspicious transaction reporting is not equivalent to a criminal conviction.

3. Can the bank remove the freeze?

It depends on the source. If the bank is implementing a binding judicial or official measure, it may not have authority to remove it independently.

4. Can the company request release of operational funds?

Depending on the legal basis of the restriction, arguments concerning legitimate operational funds and proportionality may be available.

5. Can the company challenge a freeze that lasts too long?

Potentially. The Constitutional Court has emphasized that asset restrictions must remain proportionate and that excessive duration without adequate justification can violate property rights.

6. Can foreign shareholders’ personal accounts also be investigated?

Potentially, where authorities identify relevant transactions between the company, shareholders, directors or related parties.

7. What documents are most important?

Bank statements, contracts, invoices, customs records, accounting records, SWIFT documents, corporate records and source-of-funds evidence can be particularly important.

8. Can a company continue operating while an account is frozen?

This depends on the scope of the restriction and whether the company has other lawfully accessible funds. The operational consequences should be documented carefully.

9. Can the company claim compensation if the freeze was unlawful?

Potentially, depending on the authority responsible, legal basis, eventual finding of unlawfulness, causation and documented loss.

10. What is the first thing a foreign company should do?

Determine exactly who imposed the restriction, under which legal provision, on what amount and in connection with which investigation or transaction.

Client-Focused Legal Support for MASAK Bank Account Freezes

A foreign-owned company facing a MASAK-related bank account restriction should not treat the issue merely as a banking inconvenience.

The restriction may involve anti-money-laundering legislation, a financial intelligence examination, prosecutorial investigation, criminal-procedure measures, corporate transactions and constitutional property rights simultaneously.

The first objective should be to identify the legal source of the restriction. The second should be to reconstruct the questioned transactions with commercial and banking evidence. The third should be to use the procedural remedy applicable to the actual decision.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign investors, foreign-owned companies and corporate executives with MASAK-related account restrictions, financial investigations, source-of-funds disputes, suspicious transaction issues, asset measures and related judicial proceedings in Turkey.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in reviewing the underlying transaction trail, preparing documentary explanations, challenging legally questionable restrictions and coordinating financial, corporate and criminal-law aspects of complex account-freeze cases.

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 appropriate remedy depends on the authority imposing the restriction, its statutory basis, the investigation stage, the transactions concerned and the contents of the relevant administrative, prosecutorial or judicial decision.