Can foreigners request partial release of money from a frozen Turkish bank account? Learn when investors and foreign-owned companies may seek release of unrelated funds, salaries, taxes and essential operating expenses during a financial investigation.

Yes. Depending on the legal basis, scope and authority responsible for the bank-account restriction, a foreign investor or foreign-owned company may request that a frozen account be partially released rather than demanding removal of the entire measure.

This can be particularly important where an investigation concerns only a specific transaction or amount but the restriction prevents access to a much larger account balance.

A request may potentially seek:

• Release of funds unrelated to the suspected transaction;
• Limitation of the restriction to the allegedly suspicious amount;
• Access to funds required for employee salaries;
• Payment of taxes and mandatory public liabilities;
• Payment of essential suppliers;
• Release of demonstrably legitimate incoming funds;
• Access to funds belonging to third parties;
• Modification of the existing protective measure.

Whether partial release is legally available depends on the exact type of restriction.

Is Partial Release Automatically Available?

No.

There is no universal rule under which every account holder is automatically entitled to withdraw a certain percentage of frozen funds.

The first question remains:

Who imposed the restriction and under which legal authority?

A restriction may originate from:

• Internal bank compliance procedures;
• An anti-money-laundering process;
• A prosecutor’s investigation;
• A judicial seizure order;
• Another statutory asset-freezing mechanism.

The correct request must therefore be addressed to the authority legally capable of modifying or removing the restriction.

Why Is the Amount Under Investigation Important?

Proportionality is a central consideration in measures affecting property.

The Turkish Constitutional Court has examined whether asset seizure was limited to the financial benefit allegedly connected with criminal conduct. In one property-rights case, the Court specifically regarded the fact that the measure was limited to the amount connected with the alleged material benefit as relevant to its proportionality.

This can be important where the amount frozen is dramatically greater than the amount actually questioned.

For example:

Transaction under investigation: USD 150,000
Total corporate account balance: USD 2,500,000

If the entire USD 2.5 million is inaccessible, the company may have grounds to examine whether maintaining the restriction over the whole balance is necessary.

That does not guarantee partial release, but it can provide an important basis for a proportionality argument.

Can a Company Request Release of Money Above the Suspicious Amount?

Potentially.

Suppose authorities are investigating a particular payment entering the company’s account.

The company may seek to demonstrate that the remaining balance came from entirely different legitimate sources, such as:

• Previous commercial revenue;
• Shareholder capital;
• Bank financing;
• Export revenue;
• Existing company savings;
• Unrelated customer payments.

The stronger the documentary separation between the questioned funds and legitimate funds, the stronger the factual basis for requesting a narrower restriction.

Can Money Be Released for Employee Salaries?

Potentially.

Where a complete restriction prevents a company from paying employees, payroll obligations should be documented.

The request can include:

• Employee list;
• Payroll;
• Salary amounts;
• Payment dates;
• Employment records;
• Social security obligations;
• Previous payroll bank records.

The argument is not simply that the company would prefer to use its money.

The company should demonstrate that the existing measure is creating concrete consequences for employees and continuing business operations.

Can Funds Be Released for Taxes?

Depending on the legal basis of the freeze, the company may request permission or modification enabling it to satisfy mandatory tax liabilities.

Evidence can include:

• Tax declarations;
• Tax assessments;
• Payment deadlines;
• Official payment documents;
• Accounting records.

Similar arguments may apply to mandatory social security liabilities.

What About Customs Payments?

This can be particularly important for foreign-owned trading companies.

A frozen account may prevent payment of:

• Customs duties;
• Import taxes;
• Storage charges;
• Port expenses;
• Customs broker fees;
• Other mandatory import-related costs.

The result can be commercially severe because goods may remain at customs while additional storage or demurrage expenses accumulate.

These consequences should be documented when seeking modification of the restriction.

Can Funds Be Released for Essential Suppliers?

Potentially, but the request should be supported by evidence.

The company should identify:

• Supplier;
• Contract;
• Invoice;
• Amount due;
• Payment deadline;
• Consequences of non-payment;
• Why the supplier is essential to operations.

A general statement that the company “needs money to continue business” is weaker than a documented explanation of specific obligations.

Can Rent and Utilities Be Included?

Potentially.

Essential operating expenses may include:

• Commercial rent;
• Electricity;
• Natural gas;
• Telecommunications;
• Data services;
• Insurance;
• Essential software;
• Other unavoidable operating expenses.

Again, availability depends on the particular legal measure.

Can the Account Holder Request a Monthly Withdrawal Allowance?

There are cases demonstrating that asset restrictions do not always have to operate on an absolute all-or-nothing basis.

In one Constitutional Court case concerning seizure of a person’s assets, the relevant criminal court subsequently permitted the person to withdraw a specified amount from the bank account each month. The Constitutional Court considered this fact when evaluating whether the property restriction imposed an excessive burden.

This does not create an automatic right to a monthly allowance in every frozen-account case.

It does, however, demonstrate that modification of an asset restriction can be possible in appropriate circumstances.

Can a Foreign-Owned Company Make a Similar Request?

Potentially.

Instead of requesting a personal living allowance, a company might seek narrowly defined access for legitimate business obligations.

For example:

• Monthly payroll;
• Social security payments;
• Tax payments;
• Rent;
• Essential suppliers.

The request should explain why these payments do not undermine the purpose of the investigation.

Can the Entire Freeze Be Replaced With a More Limited Measure?

Potentially.

A central proportionality question is whether the legitimate objective of the investigation can be achieved through a measure imposing a smaller burden.

For example, instead of freezing all funds, it may be argued in an appropriate case that the purpose could be protected by:

• Restricting only the disputed amount;
• Restricting a defined percentage;
• Allowing specified mandatory payments;
• Releasing demonstrably unrelated funds;
• Maintaining restrictions only over identified proceeds.

Whether such alternatives are legally available depends on the applicable measure.

What If the Company Has Multiple Bank Accounts?

This should be analyzed carefully.

Suppose the investigation concerns transactions passing through Bank Account A, but Accounts B and C are also restricted.

The company should determine:

• Why each account was included;
• Whether suspicious funds moved between the accounts;
• Whether balances can be traced independently;
• Whether some accounts contain only unrelated commercial revenue.

Separate account histories can strengthen a request to release unaffected funds.

What If the Frozen Account Contains Old Company Savings?

Historical bank statements can be particularly important.

If the company had TRY 20 million in the account before the questioned transaction occurred, the company may be able to demonstrate that substantial funds pre-date the investigated activity.

Relevant evidence can include:

• Historical statements;
• Audited accounts;
• Tax records;
• Previous invoices;
• Corporate financial statements.

Tracing the history of the account can therefore be essential.

What If New Legitimate Payments Arrive After the Freeze?

The company should determine whether the restriction also covers subsequent incoming funds.

If legitimate post-freeze revenue becomes inaccessible, the company may seek to distinguish those funds from the transaction under investigation.

For example, subsequent funds may clearly derive from:

• New export sales;
• Existing customers;
• Insurance proceeds;
• Loan financing;
• Capital contributions.

The legal significance depends on the wording and scope of the underlying restriction.

What If Customer Money Is Frozen?

This can require urgent examination.

A company may hold funds that economically belong to customers or other third parties.

Evidence may include:

• Customer agreements;
• Account records;
• Payment instructions;
• Accounting classification;
• Escrow or agency arrangements.

Third-party ownership should be clearly documented.

What If the Company Is Only an Innocent Recipient?

A company may receive funds later alleged to originate from fraud or another offence without knowing their source.

The company should document:

1. Who made the payment;
2. Why the payment was made;
3. Whether goods or services were provided;
4. What contract existed;
5. Whether the amount matched the invoice;
6. Whether the company retained or transferred the funds;
7. Whether the company had any knowledge of alleged criminal conduct.

Good-faith commercial receipt should be distinguished from knowing participation in laundering criminal proceeds.

Does Foreign Ownership Affect the Right to Request Release?

Foreign ownership does not itself eliminate procedural or property protections.

A foreign investor or foreign-owned Turkish company may seek the legal remedies available against an asset restriction affecting its property.

The focus should remain on:

• Legal basis;
• Evidence;
• Connection between funds and alleged offence;
• Necessity;
• Scope;
• Duration;
• Proportionality.

What If the Account Is Frozen Under a Judicial Seizure Order?

The request must address the underlying judicial measure.

Merely asking the bank manager to release funds will generally not solve a restriction the bank is legally required to implement.

The company’s lawyer should identify:

• Court or judicial authority;
• Decision number;
• Investigation number;
• Assets covered;
• Amount covered;
• Legal basis;
• Available objection or review procedure.

Under criminal procedure, seizure decisions are subject to procedural safeguards and judicial review mechanisms. The Constitutional Court has emphasized the importance of effective judicial review of seizure measures.

Can a Seizure Decision Be Challenged?

Depending on the measure, yes.

Turkish criminal procedure provides objection mechanisms against qualifying judicial decisions.

The challenge may argue that:

• Statutory conditions are absent;
• Funds cannot be linked to the alleged offence;
• The measure covers excessive assets;
• The account belongs to an innocent third party;
• The restriction has become unnecessary;
• A narrower measure would be sufficient.

The specific decision must be reviewed before selecting the procedural remedy.

What If There Is No Evidence the Company’s Assets Came From Crime?

This can be highly important.

In one Constitutional Court case, a criminal court removed an asset seizure after the available financial analysis did not establish concrete findings that the assets had been obtained from the alleged criminal activity.

This demonstrates the importance of the evidentiary connection between the alleged offence and the property affected by the measure.

It does not mean every account restriction must automatically be removed where the account holder denies wrongdoing.

But it supports careful examination of whether the statutory conditions for continued seizure actually remain satisfied.

Can the Company Ask for Complete Removal and Partial Release in the Alternative?

Depending on procedural strategy, this may be appropriate.

For example, the company may argue:

Primary request: Remove the restriction because the statutory conditions are not satisfied.

Alternative request: If the authority considers some restriction necessary, limit it to the amount allegedly connected with the investigation and release the remaining legitimate funds.

This can be more practical than presenting the issue as an all-or-nothing dispute.

What Evidence Is Needed for Partial Release?

A strong request should normally contain a detailed financial explanation.

Useful evidence can include:

1. Bank statements;
2. SWIFT records;
3. Contracts;
4. Invoices;
5. Customs declarations;
6. Shipping documents;
7. Accounting ledgers;
8. Tax returns;
9. Payroll records;
10. Social security payment records;
11. Supplier invoices;
12. Rental agreements;
13. Loan agreements;
14. Corporate resolutions;
15. Shareholder funding documents;
16. Source-of-funds records.

The objective is to distinguish legitimate money from the funds actually under investigation.

Should the Company Prepare a Fund-Tracing Table?

This can be extremely useful.

A transaction table can identify:

Date	Amount	Sender	Purpose	Supporting Evidence
Transaction 1	Amount	Customer	Export payment	Contract + invoice
Transaction 2	Amount	Shareholder	Capital funding	Corporate records
Transaction 3	Amount	Bank	Loan proceeds	Loan agreement
Transaction 4	Amount	Customer	Domestic sale	Invoice + delivery

A clear transaction map can help demonstrate that substantial parts of the balance are unrelated to the questioned transaction.

What Evidence Shows Operational Necessity?

The company should document the consequences of continued total restriction.

Examples include:

• Unpaid payroll;
• Tax deadlines;
• Social security liabilities;
• Supplier default notices;
• Customs storage charges;
• Lease default notices;
• Loan default notices;
• Cancelled customer orders;
• Production stoppages.

This evidence supports the proportionality aspect of the request.

Does Proportionality Matter?

Yes.

Asset restrictions interfere with property rights and therefore must remain proportionate.

The Constitutional Court has emphasized that the balance between the public interest in investigating criminal conduct and protection of property rights depends on whether the individual or company is subjected to an excessive burden.

A measure limited to the financial amount associated with alleged criminal benefit may be easier to justify than an unnecessarily broad restriction over unrelated assets.

Does the Duration of the Freeze Matter?

Yes.

Even where a restriction was justified initially, prolonged continuation can require renewed scrutiny.

The Constitutional Court has found a property-rights violation in a case where a bank-account restriction continued for more than five years without adequate justification for maintaining it for such a prolonged period.

This does not establish a universal maximum period.

It does establish an important principle: temporary property restrictions must not become disproportionate merely because authorities continue them without adequate reassessment.

Can Partial Release Become More Justified as Time Passes?

Potentially.

Consider the following situation:

Week 1: Authorities cannot determine where the funds came from.

Month 2: The company submits contracts and invoices.

Month 4: Customs records confirm the underlying trade.

Month 6: Banking records confirm the source.

If substantial evidence has clarified the legitimate origin of most funds, maintaining a complete restriction may require stronger justification.

Can the Company Request Reconsideration More Than Once?

Depending on the applicable procedure, changed circumstances may justify a renewed request.

For example:

• New evidence becomes available;
• The suspicious transaction is clarified;
• The investigation narrows;
• Another suspect admits responsibility;
• Foreign banking records arrive;
• Operational consequences become severe;
• The restriction continues substantially longer than originally expected.

A previously rejected request does not necessarily mean that changed circumstances can never be raised later.

Can Funds Be Released Directly to Employees or Public Authorities?

Whether a controlled payment mechanism can be used depends on the legal basis and authority supervising the restriction.

In an appropriate case, a request may propose that specific payments be permitted directly for identified obligations rather than giving unrestricted access to the entire account.

For example:

• Salary payments directly to employees;
• Taxes directly to the tax authority;
• Social security contributions directly to the relevant institution.

This may help demonstrate that the requested modification will not frustrate the purpose of the investigation.

Can the Company Offer Security Instead?

Whether substitution with another form of security is available depends on the specific measure.

Where legally possible, the company may explore whether the investigative objective can be protected through a less disruptive alternative.

This should never be assumed without reviewing the underlying decision and statutory framework.

What Should Foreign Investors Avoid Doing?

A frozen account should never be circumvented through artificial transactions.

Avoid:

• Moving operations to another person’s personal account to hide money;
• Creating false invoices;
• Backdating contracts;
• Altering accounting records;
• Concealing beneficial ownership;
• Using related companies to disguise transfers;
• Destroying messages;
• Giving inconsistent explanations.

Such conduct can substantially worsen the investigation.

Can the Company Claim Compensation if the Restriction Was Unlawful?

Potentially.

Turkish criminal procedure recognizes compensation mechanisms in certain circumstances where property or other assets were seized without the statutory conditions being satisfied or were not appropriately protected. Constitutional Court case law has also addressed the availability of compensation in the context of seizure measures.

Whether compensation is available depends on the particular measure and procedural history.

Should Losses Be Documented While the Account Is Still Frozen?

Yes.

The company should preserve evidence of:

• Default interest;
• Penalties;
• Lost contracts;
• Emergency financing;
• Supplier claims;
• Payroll problems;
• Customs costs;
• Storage and demurrage;
• Cancelled orders;
• Business interruption.

If compensation later becomes relevant, contemporaneous evidence can be critical.

2026 Practical Strategy for Requesting Partial Release

Step 1 — Identify the Legal Basis

Determine who imposed the restriction.

Step 2 — Obtain the Underlying Decision

Identify the investigation and decision numbers where available.

Step 3 — Identify the Questioned Amount

Determine exactly which transactions are under investigation.

Step 4 — Calculate the Unrelated Balance

Separate historical and subsequent legitimate funds.

Step 5 — Trace Every Major Transaction

Connect transfers with contracts, invoices and accounting records.

Step 6 — Document Mandatory Payments

Prepare payroll, tax and social security evidence.

Step 7 — Document Business Harm

Show how the complete restriction affects operations.

Step 8 — Request Full Removal Where Legally Justified

If the statutory conditions are absent, challenge the entire restriction.

Step 9 — Consider Partial Release in the Alternative

Seek limitation to the amount genuinely under investigation.

Step 10 — Propose Controlled Payments Where Appropriate

Identify specific salary, tax or essential operational payments.

Step 11 — Challenge Disproportionate Duration

If the measure continues, reassess whether its justification remains sufficient.

Step 12 — Preserve Evidence of Loss

Maintain a record for any subsequent compensation claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a foreign investor request partial release of a frozen bank account in Turkey?

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

2. Can funds above the allegedly suspicious amount be released?

Potentially. The investor may argue that the restriction should be limited to funds connected with the alleged offence, particularly where unrelated funds can be clearly traced and documented.

3. Can a company request money for employee salaries?

Potentially. Payroll records and evidence of operational necessity should support the request.

4. Can taxes and social security payments be released?

Depending on the legal mechanism, a company may seek permission or modification allowing mandatory public liabilities to be paid.

5. Can a court allow limited withdrawals without completely removing the freeze?

Yes, such modification is possible in principle. Constitutional Court case law includes an example where a criminal court permitted specified monthly withdrawals while an asset measure otherwise remained in force.

6. Can the company request full removal and partial release at the same time?

Depending on procedural strategy, the company may seek complete removal and alternatively request limitation of the measure.

7. What if most of the account balance existed before the suspicious transaction?

Historical bank records can be used to demonstrate that those funds pre-date and may be unrelated to the questioned transaction.

8. Can a prolonged total freeze become disproportionate?

Potentially, yes. The duration, scope, continuing justification and burden on the account holder are relevant to constitutional proportionality.

9. Can foreign-owned companies make these requests?

Potentially, yes. Foreign ownership does not itself eliminate available procedural remedies concerning restrictions over company property.

10. What is the most important evidence for partial release?

A clear fund-tracing record showing which money is allegedly connected with the investigation and which funds arise from legitimate, unrelated commercial activity.

Client-Focused Legal Support for Partial Release of Frozen Funds

A frozen bank account does not always have to be approached as an all-or-nothing problem.

Where the investigation concerns only a particular transaction or amount, a foreign investor or foreign-owned company may have grounds to argue that unrelated funds should not remain inaccessible or that specific amounts should be released for legitimate and essential obligations.

The strongest applications generally combine fund tracing, commercial documentation, operational evidence and proportionality arguments.

Particular attention should be given to the amount allegedly connected with the investigation, the total amount frozen, the source of unrelated funds, the duration of the restriction and the financial damage caused by preventing access to the entire account.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign investors, foreign-owned companies and corporate executives with MASAK-related financial investigations, frozen bank accounts, judicial seizure measures, requests for partial release of funds and challenges to disproportionate asset restrictions in Turkey.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in tracing legitimate funds, preparing supporting commercial and banking evidence, requesting release of operational funds and challenging the continued scope of financial restrictions.

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. Whether partial release is available depends on the legal basis of the restriction, the issuing authority, the investigation stage, the connection between the funds and the alleged offence, and the evidence presented in the individual case.