Foreigners Accused of Using a Fake Invoice in Turkey: Criminal Liability and Defense 2026

Accused of using a fake invoice in Turkey? Learn how foreign company owners, directors, investors and employees can respond to tax inspections and criminal investigations, prove genuine transactions, challenge fake-invoice allegations and build a defense in 2026.

A foreign investor establishes or acquires a company in Turkey. The company purchases goods, consultancy, transportation, construction, software, machinery or another service from a Turkish supplier. An invoice is issued, payment is made and the invoice enters the company’s accounting records.

Months or even years later, the foreign shareholder or company manager receives disturbing news:

The supplier is suspected of issuing fake invoices.

The company’s invoices are being examined.

A tax inspection may begin.

The matter may eventually reach the public prosecutor.

For a foreign company owner, director, employee or investor, a fake-invoice allegation can create both financial and criminal exposure. But one principle is crucial:

The existence of a suspicious invoice in a company’s accounting records does not by itself answer who knew what, whether the underlying transaction actually occurred, who decided to use the document or whether the elements of a criminal offence are established.

Under the Turkish Tax Procedure Law, a fake document is fundamentally a document created as though a transaction or situation existed when in reality it did not. The Constitutional Court has also examined Article 359 in cases involving allegations that fake invoices were entered into commercial books and used for tax purposes.

For foreign suspects, an effective defense therefore usually begins with five questions:

Was the transaction real? Who selected the supplier? Who received the goods or services? Who controlled accounting and tax filings? What did the accused foreigner actually know?

What Is a Fake Invoice Under Turkish Tax Law?

The concept should not be used loosely.

Article 359 of the Tax Procedure Law distinguishes between different categories of problematic documents.

A fake document concerns a transaction or situation that did not actually exist but was documented as though it had occurred. The Constitutional Court’s discussion of Article 359 expressly records this statutory definition.

This must be distinguished from a document that relates to a genuine transaction but inaccurately describes its nature or amount.

That distinction can completely change the legal analysis.

Fake Invoice and Misleading Invoice Are Not the Same

A transaction may genuinely have occurred, but the invoice may inaccurately describe:

• Quantity
• Price
• Type of goods
• Type of services
• Parties
• Other material transaction details

The Revenue Administration’s current VAT implementation guidance describes a misleading document as one based on a real transaction or situation but reflecting that transaction inaccurately in nature or amount. The guidance also emphasizes factual indicators such as payment information, movement of goods and buyer information.

Accordingly:

No genuine transaction → potentially fake-document issue.

Genuine transaction inaccurately represented → potentially misleading-document issue.

The distinction should be investigated rather than assumed.

Why Are Foreign Company Owners Accused?

A foreigner may become involved because they are:

• Company shareholder
• Board member
• Company director
• Authorized signatory
• Branch manager
• Financial manager
• Purchasing manager
• Foreign investor
• Employee responsible for procurement
• Person who approved a payment

But corporate title alone does not explain the person’s actual role in the transaction.

A foreign shareholder who invested capital but never managed purchasing should not automatically be treated in exactly the same way as the individual who selected the supplier, negotiated the fictitious transaction and directed the accounting entry.

The investigation should identify individual conduct.

How Does a Fake-Invoice Investigation Usually Begin?

The investigation may start with the supplier rather than the foreign company.

For example, tax authorities investigate Supplier A.

The authorities allegedly find:

• No sufficient employees
• No warehouse
• No meaningful inventory
• No commercial capacity
• Suspicious banking transactions
• Numerous invoices
• Inconsistent declarations
• Unexplained cash withdrawals

Authorities then examine companies that received invoices from Supplier A.

The foreign-owned company appears on the list.

This does not necessarily mean that every customer of Supplier A knowingly participated in fraud.

The recipient company’s own transaction must be examined.

A Supplier Being Suspicious Does Not Automatically Make Every Customer Guilty

This is one of the most important defense issues.

Suppose a company purchased machinery from a supplier that later became subject to a fake-document investigation.

The defense should ask:

Was machinery actually delivered?

Where was it installed?

Who transported it?

Who accepted delivery?

Was payment made?

Does the machinery still exist?

Was it entered into company assets?

If the physical transaction can be independently demonstrated, the evidentiary picture may be very different from a purely fictitious invoice.

The Reality of the Commercial Transaction Is Critical

A defense should reconstruct the underlying business transaction.

Depending on the case, useful evidence can include:

• Purchase agreement
• Purchase order
• Quotation
• Proforma invoice
• Email correspondence
• WhatsApp messages
• Delivery note
• Shipping documents
• Warehouse records
• Customs records
• Bank transfer
• Accounting records
• Inventory records
• Installation documents
• Technical reports
• Photographs
• Employee statements
• Customer records

The goal is not merely to show that an invoice exists.

The goal is to establish what actually happened commercially.

Bank Payment Is Important — But Not Always Conclusive

A bank transfer can support the existence of a transaction.

For example:

Company → Supplier → TRY 2,500,000

But investigators may examine what happened next.

If the supplier immediately withdrew nearly all of the money in cash or transferred it through related accounts, additional questions may arise.

Therefore:

Bank payment ≠ automatic proof that the transaction was genuine.

But equally:

A suspicious supplier ≠ automatic proof that the recipient knowingly used a fake invoice.

The complete financial and commercial chain matters.

Cash Payments Can Create Evidentiary Difficulties

Where substantial invoices were supposedly paid in cash, proving the transaction may become more difficult.

The defense may need to identify:

• Cash withdrawal
• Person making payment
• Person receiving payment
• Receipt
• Company cash records
• Delivery
• Commercial reason for cash payment

Do not create documents retrospectively to fill evidentiary gaps.

Existing evidence should be preserved and presented accurately.

Foreign Shareholder Versus Company Manager

These roles should not be confused.

A foreign person may own 70% of a Turkish company but have no operational role.

Another person may serve as local general manager and control:

• Supplier selection
• Accounting
• Procurement
• Banking
• Tax declarations

The investigation should identify actual responsibility rather than infer criminal liability merely from ownership percentage.

Being an Authorized Signatory Is Important but Not Automatically Decisive

An authorized signatory may have signed:

• Contract
• Bank payment
• Purchase approval

That can be relevant evidence.

But the signature should be considered in context.

Questions include:

What did the person sign?

What information did they have?

Was the transaction real?

Who negotiated it?

Who verified delivery?

Was the accused person relying on professional departments or external accountants?

Can a Foreign Director Say “My Accountant Did Everything”?

That statement alone is usually insufficient as a defense strategy.

The investigation should determine the accountant’s actual role.

For example:

Who supplied the invoice to accounting?

Who approved the supplier?

Who instructed the payment?

Who received the goods?

Did the accountant merely record a document supplied by management?

Conversely, where a foreign director had no involvement in accounting or supplier selection, objective evidence showing the company’s actual division of responsibilities can be important.

Preserve the Company’s Organizational Structure

Foreign companies should preserve evidence showing who was responsible for:

• Procurement
• Supplier approval
• Accounting
• Finance
• Warehousing
• Tax declarations
• Banking
• Management approval

Useful material may include:

• Employment contracts
• Job descriptions
• Internal regulations
• Authorization documents
• Board decisions
• Signature circulars
• Email instructions

This can help establish individual responsibility.

What If the Foreign Director Does Not Speak Turkish?

Language can become highly relevant.

Suppose the invoice, accounting records, supplier correspondence and tax documents were entirely in Turkish.

The foreign director operated in English and relied on local management.

This fact does not automatically eliminate responsibility.

But it can be relevant to the factual question of what the individual actually reviewed, understood and approved.

Preserve:

• English-language communications
• Translation requests
• Internal reporting
• Emails from local managers
• Accounting reports supplied to the director

Criminal Responsibility Is Personal

A company can have numerous shareholders, directors and employees.

A criminal case should not simply assume:

Company used invoice → every director committed offence.

The prosecution must establish the accused person’s legally relevant conduct and the required mental element under the applicable offence.

The Constitutional Court’s discussion of the statutory framework expressly recognizes that criminal proceedings and tax-penalty proceedings may concern overlapping facts but involve distinct legal consequences.

Knowledge and Intent Can Become Central Defense Issues

A foreign business may genuinely purchase goods from a supplier that later turns out to be problematic.

The relevant question is not merely:

“Was the supplier later classified as suspicious?”

The investigation may need to determine:

Did the accused know the document was fake?

What circumstances existed at the transaction date?

Was there a real commercial transaction?

Was there a legitimate business reason for the purchase?

What due diligence was performed?

What evidence was available to the accused at that time?

The defense should focus on contemporaneous facts rather than explanations invented after the investigation begins.

Later Problems With the Supplier Do Not Rewrite the Past Automatically

A supplier may later:

• Close its business
• Stop filing taxes
• Become unreachable
• Enter insolvency
• Become subject to a tax investigation

Those later developments may be relevant.

But they do not automatically establish what the foreign purchaser knew at the time of an earlier transaction.

The transaction should be evaluated according to its actual circumstances.

What Evidence Can Prove Goods Were Really Delivered?

For goods transactions, consider:

• Delivery notes
• Warehouse entries
• Freight documents
• Vehicle records
• Weighbridge records
• Customs documents
• Stock movements
• Production consumption records
• Subsequent sales
• Photographs
• Serial numbers
• Employee statements

Suppose a manufacturer allegedly purchased 100 tons of raw material.

The defense can ask:

Did the material enter the warehouse?

Was it used in production?

Did production levels correspond with the purchase?

This type of objective evidence can be much stronger than simply relying on the invoice.

What Evidence Can Prove a Service Was Really Provided?

Services can be more difficult because there may be no physical product.

For consultancy, software, marketing, engineering or management services, preserve:

• Contract
• Scope of work
• Emails
• Reports
• Presentations
• Source files
• Meeting records
• Timesheets
• Deliverables
• Project files
• Access logs
• Invoices
• Payment records

A vague invoice saying:

“Consultancy — TRY 3,000,000”

without evidence of any actual consultancy may create obvious evidentiary difficulties.

Foreign Consultancy Transactions

Foreign-owned companies often purchase services from:

• International consultants
• Related companies
• Software providers
• Management companies
• Engineering firms

Where such invoices are questioned, preserve evidence showing what was actually delivered.

A contract alone may not prove performance.

The defense should connect:

Contract → Work performed → Deliverable → Payment → Business use.

Customs Records Can Be Powerful Evidence

Where the disputed invoice concerns imported goods, customs documentation may provide independent evidence of a genuine transaction.

Potential records include:

• Customs declaration
• Commercial invoice
• Packing list
• Bill of lading
• Air waybill
• Transport documentation
• Warehouse records

But customs documents should also be checked for consistency with the disputed invoice.

What If the Invoice Amount Is Higher Than the Real Transaction?

This can create a different issue from a completely fictitious transaction.

Current Revenue Administration guidance distinguishes a document based on a real transaction but inaccurately reflecting its nature or amount from a document created for a transaction that never existed.

Therefore, a defense should not treat every disputed invoice as legally identical.

What If the Supplier Used Someone Else’s Company?

Suppose goods were genuinely delivered by Person A, but the invoice was issued by Company B.

This requires careful analysis.

The defense should determine:

• Who actually sold the goods?
• Why did Company B issue the invoice?
• Who received payment?
• Was Company B involved in the transaction?
• What did the purchaser know?

A real physical delivery does not necessarily resolve every invoice problem if the documented parties do not reflect the real commercial relationship.

Fake Invoice Allegations and Tax Inspection

A fake-invoice allegation often develops through tax inspection before reaching criminal proceedings.

The Revenue Administration’s current VAT implementation guidance sets out specific treatment of adverse findings concerning fake-document use and distinguishes these from misleading-document findings. It also provides procedures in certain circumstances for taxpayers to establish the reality of transactions or correct VAT treatment.

A foreign company should therefore take the tax-inspection stage seriously.

Statements and documents produced there can later become important.

Do Not Ignore Requests for Books and Records

If tax authorities lawfully request documents, the company should obtain legal and accounting advice promptly.

Do not:

• Destroy records
• Alter accounting
• Backdate agreements
• Create false delivery notes
• Delete emails
• Fabricate payment evidence

Attempting to “fix” the file after the investigation starts can create much greater problems.

Preserve Electronic Accounting Evidence

Relevant evidence may exist in:

• Accounting software
• Enterprise resource planning systems
• Email
• Cloud storage
• Procurement systems
• Bank portals
• Warehouse software
• Electronic invoice records

Preserve originals and relevant metadata where possible.

Electronic Invoice Does Not Automatically Mean Genuine Transaction

An invoice existing electronically does not itself prove that the underlying goods or services existed.

Electronic issuance and substantive truth are different questions.

The defense should prove the underlying commercial reality.

How Can the Supplier Be Investigated?

Relevant questions may include:

Did the supplier have employees?

Did it have premises?

Did it have inventory?

Could it actually provide the service?

Did it purchase the goods it later sold?

Were there transportation records?

Where did the payment go?

These questions may support either prosecution or defense depending on the answers.

Supplier Capacity Is Not Always Simple

A supplier without a large warehouse is not necessarily fictitious.

For example, some businesses legitimately operate through:

• Drop shipping
• Subcontractors
• Third-party logistics
• Direct shipment
• Outsourced manufacturing

Therefore, business capacity should be evaluated according to the commercial model.

Can a Tax Penalty and Criminal Case Exist Together?

Potentially, yes.

Turkish law treats tax-related administrative consequences and criminal liability as distinct legal mechanisms. The Constitutional Court has examined the interaction between tax penalties and criminal proceedings concerning Article 359 and emphasized the need for procedural safeguards where overlapping factual issues can affect the different proceedings.

Foreign suspects should therefore not assume that winning or losing one proceeding mechanically determines every other proceeding.

Who Reports the Matter to the Prosecutor?

Article 367 of the Tax Procedure Law regulates the procedural mechanism through which findings concerning Article 359 offences are reported for criminal investigation. The Constitutional Court’s discussion of the provision records the role of tax inspectors, report evaluation and notification to the public prosecutor.

Accordingly, a fake-invoice criminal case often has a substantial tax-inspection file behind it.

The Tax Inspection Report Should Be Examined Carefully

The defense should examine how the conclusion was reached.

Important questions include:

• Was the supplier examined?
• Were company representatives interviewed?
• Were bank records analyzed?
• Was delivery investigated?
• Were transportation records obtained?
• Were witnesses heard?
• Was the actual commercial activity considered?
• Was the accused person’s individual role established?

A conclusion that an invoice is fake should be tested against the underlying evidence.

A Complaint or Suspicion Alone Should Not Replace Evidence

The Revenue Administration’s current guidance states, in the context of misleading-document findings, that matters such as the reality of payment, movement of goods and buyer information must be supported by evidence; it also states that a mere notification or complaint, without another determination, is not sufficient for the specified adverse treatment.

This reinforces the importance of evidence-based analysis.

What If the Foreign Investor Bought the Company Later?

This is a particularly important scenario.

A foreign investor acquires a Turkish company in 2026.

Tax authorities later investigate invoices from 2024.

The new shareholder should immediately determine:

Who owned the company at the transaction date?

Who managed it?

Who signed?

Who controlled accounting?

Did the new investor have any involvement at all?

Current ownership should not be confused with conduct occurring before the acquisition.

Share Purchase Due Diligence Matters

Foreign investors acquiring Turkish companies should examine historical tax exposure, including:

• Supplier risks
• Tax inspections
• VAT issues
• Suspicious invoices
• Tax debts
• Pending litigation
• Accounting records

Where historical fake-invoice exposure exists, the acquisition documents and allocation of contractual risk may also become commercially important, although contractual indemnities do not themselves determine criminal responsibility.

Foreign Company Director Who Resigned

If the disputed invoice was issued after a director left office, preserve:

• Resignation
• Trade registry records
• Board resolutions
• Termination of signature authority
• Bank authorization changes

Dates can be decisive.

What If the Invoice Predates the Foreigner’s Appointment?

This should be identified immediately.

Prepare a timeline:

January 2024 — Invoice issued

March 2024 — Invoice entered into records

January 2025 — Foreign investor acquires shares

February 2025 — Foreign director appointed

Such a chronology may significantly affect individual responsibility.

Do Not Assume the Company Accountant Is Automatically Responsible

External accountants and financial advisers may have important roles, but criminal responsibility depends on their individual conduct.

The defense should avoid unsupported blame.

Instead, establish objectively:

• Who received the invoice
• Who approved it
• Who recorded it
• Who filed the declaration
• Who communicated with supplier
• Who approved payment

What If an Employee Used the Invoice Without the Director’s Knowledge?

Preserve evidence of:

• Employee authority
• Internal approval limits
• Procurement workflow
• Emails
• Banking controls
• Accounting permissions

The prosecution and defense should identify the actual decision-making chain.

Do Not Coordinate False Statements

When several directors, employees and accountants are questioned, there may be a temptation to agree on a common story.

That is dangerous.

Each person should provide an accurate account based on their actual knowledge.

Do not:

• Invent supplier meetings
• Create fictional deliveries
• Backdate emails
• Alter invoices
• Pressure employees

What Should a Foreign Suspect Do Before Giving a Statement?

Before providing a detailed criminal statement, understand:

• Exact allegation
• Relevant invoice numbers
• Tax periods
• Supplier
• Amount
• Your role
• Available commercial evidence

A generic statement such as:

“I know nothing about accounting.”

may be ineffective if the file contains documents signed personally by the suspect.

The statement should correspond with objective records.

Prepare an Invoice-by-Invoice Defense Table

For multiple disputed invoices, create a structured table:

Invoice	Supplier	Transaction	Payment	Delivery/Service Evidence	Responsible Person
001	Supplier A	Machinery	Bank	Delivery + installation	Procurement Manager
002	Supplier B	Software	Bank	Contract + source files	IT Director
003	Supplier C	Transport	Bank	Freight records	Logistics Manager

This prevents different transactions from being incorrectly treated as one undifferentiated allegation.

Compare Invoice With Bank Records

For each invoice ask:

Was it paid?

When?

From which account?

To whose account?

Was the amount identical?

Was money later returned?

Circular payments can be particularly important.

Returned Money Can Be Significant

Suppose the company transfers TRY 5 million to a supplier and shortly afterward TRY 4.8 million returns through another person or related entity.

Investigators may regard this as suspicious.

The defense should identify any legitimate explanation supported by contemporaneous records rather than ignoring the movement.

Related Companies Require Extra Care

Transactions between:

• Parent and subsidiary
• Sister companies
• Shareholder and company
• Companies under common control

may attract closer scrutiny.

Preserve evidence showing actual economic substance.

2026 Current Position

As of 2026, fake and misleading invoices remain expressly relevant under Turkey’s Tax Procedure Law and Revenue Administration practice.

Current Revenue Administration guidance continues to distinguish fake-document use from misleading-document use and examines evidence such as payment information, movement of goods and buyer information when assessing whether documents reflect genuine transactions.

Article 359 remains the central criminal provision for tax-evasion offences involving fake documents. Constitutional Court case law confirms that the statutory framework treats completely or partially fake documents and their use as criminal matters while separately defining a fake document by reference to a transaction or situation that did not actually exist.

Therefore, the practical defense in 2026 should not begin and end with the invoice itself.

It should reconstruct:

Supplier → Contract → Commercial need → Delivery or service → Payment → Accounting → Tax treatment → Individual decision-maker.

20-Step Defense Checklist for Foreigners Accused of Using Fake Invoices

1. Obtain the exact invoice list.
2. Identify the relevant tax periods.
3. Identify the supplier involved.
4. Determine whether the allegation concerns a fake or misleading document.
5. Preserve the underlying contracts.
6. Preserve purchase orders and quotations.
7. Preserve bank records.
8. Preserve delivery documentation.
9. Preserve customs records where applicable.
10. Preserve warehouse records.
11. Preserve emails and messaging records.
12. Preserve service deliverables.
13. Identify who selected the supplier.
14. Identify who approved payment.
15. Identify who controlled accounting.
16. Establish the foreign suspect’s actual corporate role.
17. Prepare an invoice-by-invoice chronology.
18. Review the tax inspection findings carefully.
19. Do not create or alter evidence retrospectively.
20. Coordinate the tax and criminal defense strategies without confusing their separate legal consequences.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a foreigner be prosecuted for using a fake invoice in Turkey?

Yes. Foreign nationality does not create immunity from Turkish criminal or tax rules where Turkish jurisdiction and the statutory conditions apply.

2. Is every incorrect invoice a fake invoice?

No. Turkish tax law distinguishes a fake document from a document that is based on a real transaction but inaccurately reflects its nature or amount.

3. What is a fake document under the Tax Procedure Law?

The statutory concept concerns a document created as though a transaction or situation existed when in reality it did not.

4. If my supplier issued fake invoices to other companies, am I automatically guilty?

No. The transaction involving your company and your own individual conduct must still be examined. Evidence showing genuine delivery, service, payment and commercial purpose can be highly important.

5. Is a bank transfer enough to prove the invoice was genuine?

Not necessarily. It is useful evidence, but authorities may examine whether the money remained with the supplier, was withdrawn, returned or transferred onward.

6. Can a foreign shareholder be prosecuted merely because they own the company?

Ownership can be relevant context, but individual criminal responsibility requires examination of the person’s actual conduct and the applicable elements of the offence. The operational roles of directors, employees, accountants and procurement personnel should be distinguished.

7. What if I became a shareholder after the disputed invoices were issued?

The transaction dates, acquisition date, management changes and your actual involvement should be documented carefully. Current ownership should not simply be treated as proof of participation in earlier conduct.

8. What is the strongest evidence that an invoice relates to a genuine transaction?

There is no single universal document. Contracts, bank payments, delivery records, customs documents, warehouse movements, production records, service deliverables, emails and independent third-party records can collectively establish commercial reality.

9. Can tax penalties and criminal proceedings both arise?

Potentially, yes. Turkish law provides distinct administrative tax consequences and criminal proceedings, although overlapping factual findings can be relevant to both.

10. What should a foreign company director do after learning about a fake-invoice investigation?

Identify the invoices and periods immediately, preserve accounting and commercial records, reconstruct each transaction, determine the director’s actual role and obtain case-specific legal and tax advice before providing explanations that may later become part of criminal proceedings.

Legal Assistance for Foreigners Facing Fake Invoice Investigations in Turkey

A fake-invoice case should not be reduced to a single question:

“Is the invoice in the company’s accounting records?”

A comprehensive defense may require analysis of the underlying commercial transaction, supplier capacity, payment trail, delivery records, customs documentation, accounting systems, tax declarations, corporate authorization structure and the individual role of every director, shareholder and employee involved.

For foreign suspects, the most important questions are often:

Did the goods or services actually exist? Who selected the supplier? Who received the goods? Who approved the invoice? Who controlled the accounting process? What did the foreign director or shareholder actually know at the relevant time?

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign investors, shareholders, directors, executives and employees facing tax-related criminal investigations and fake-invoice allegations in Turkey.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign clients with tax-inspection-related criminal proceedings, fake and misleading invoice allegations, prosecutor investigations, commercial evidence analysis, bank and payment records, supplier transactions, corporate responsibility and defense strategies concerning allegations under the Turkish Tax Procedure Law.

Early preparation can be particularly important because a defense may require reconstruction of transactions from several years earlier. Contracts, emails, bank records, customs documents, delivery records and corporate authorization evidence should therefore be identified and preserved as soon as the investigation becomes known.

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, tax consequences and available defenses depend on the invoice, transaction, tax period, accused person’s individual role, applicable version of the legislation and evidence in the specific case.