Can a foreign shareholder freeze a Turkish company’s bank accounts, real estate or other assets during a shareholder dispute? Learn about interim injunctions, interim attachment, manager restrictions, evidence requirements and asset protection in Turkey.

Yes. A foreign investor involved in a shareholder dispute in Turkey may, in appropriate circumstances, ask a Turkish court to impose interim measures protecting company assets before the main lawsuit is concluded.

However, a shareholder cannot obtain a blanket freeze simply by alleging that the Turkish partner is untrustworthy.

Turkish courts generally require the applicant to demonstrate a concrete legal dispute, a genuine risk that the relevant right will become substantially more difficult or impossible to enforce, or a risk of serious harm if immediate protection is not granted. The shareholder seeking an interim injunction must also satisfy the prima facie proof (“yaklaşık ispat”) standard applicable under the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

This makes evidence crucial.

Suspicious bank transfers, attempted property sales, transfers to related companies, unexplained withdrawals, asset-stripping transactions, unusual management resolutions and documents showing preparations to dispose of company property can significantly strengthen an application.

For foreign shareholders, the objective is usually not simply to “freeze the company.” The objective should be to obtain a targeted and proportionate measure preventing disputed assets from disappearing while allowing legitimate company operations to continue.

What Is an Interim Injunction in a Turkish Shareholder Dispute?

An interim injunction, known as ihtiyati tedbir, is a temporary judicial measure designed to protect a right before a final judgment can be obtained.

Article 389 and following provisions of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure provide the general framework.

An injunction may become available where a change in existing circumstances could make enforcement of the right significantly more difficult or impossible, or where delay could cause serious damage. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

Shareholder disputes are particularly suitable for considering interim protection because commercial litigation may continue while management still controls company assets.

Without temporary protection, the investor might eventually win the lawsuit but discover that the disputed property or company value has disappeared.

Can a Foreign Shareholder Apply for the Same Measures as a Turkish Shareholder?

Generally, yes.

Foreign nationality does not, by itself, prevent a shareholder from seeking judicial protection concerning a Turkish company.

The shareholder’s substantive rights depend primarily on Turkish company law, the company’s articles of association, the shareholder agreement where applicable, and the nature of the dispute.

Accordingly, a foreign investor owning shares in a Turkish limited liability or joint-stock company may seek appropriate judicial protection where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Can the Court Freeze All Company Assets?

This should not be assumed.

Turkish courts apply proportionality when considering interim relief.

A measure that effectively destroys the company’s ability to operate may be refused where a narrower measure would adequately protect the claimant.

A 2026 Ankara Regional Court of Appeal decision concerning a limited-company dispute specifically emphasized that interim measures must take account of proportionality as well as the interests of both the company and the shareholder. The court noted that measures should not effectively produce the company’s dissolution or financial destruction before the merits are determined. (Hukuk Asistan)

Therefore, asking the court to freeze every bank account, vehicle, property and receivable may sometimes weaken rather than strengthen the application.

Can Company Bank Accounts Be Frozen?

Potentially, depending on the nature of the claim and evidence.

Suppose the foreign shareholder can show that a managing partner has already transferred substantial company funds to personal or related-party accounts and that additional transfers are imminent.

A request for urgent protection may be considered.

However, completely blocking the company’s operating account could prevent payment of salaries, taxes, suppliers and ordinary commercial expenses.

The court may therefore consider whether a narrower measure is sufficient.

The requested protection should be designed around the particular risk.

Can the Court Stop Company Real Estate From Being Sold?

Potentially, yes.

This can be one of the most important interim remedies where a Turkish company owns valuable land, offices, factories, hotels, development projects or other real estate.

If the foreign shareholder has evidence that management is preparing to sell or transfer a material property in circumstances connected with the dispute, an injunction preventing disposal may be requested.

Where granted, the measure can be implemented through the relevant registry.

Turkish interim measures can also operate through third parties controlling the relevant property or registration process, such as a bank or registry authority, where necessary to preserve the disputed right. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

Can Vehicles, Machinery or Other Company Assets Be Protected?

Potentially.

The same general principles can apply to valuable movable property.

For example, a manufacturing company may own machinery worth millions of Turkish lira.

If the controlling shareholder begins transferring that machinery to another company they control, the foreign shareholder may need urgent judicial intervention.

Evidence showing actual preparations for disposal will generally be far more persuasive than a generalized fear that assets “might” someday be transferred.

Can Shares Be Subject to Interim Measures?

Potentially, where shares themselves form part of the dispute.

This commonly arises in cases involving disputed share transfers, invalid corporate transactions, contractual transfer restrictions or allegations that a shareholder is attempting to move shares to another person to frustrate the proceedings.

The appropriate measure depends on the legal nature of the shares and underlying claim.

The court will again examine whether the requested restriction directly protects the disputed right.

Can a Foreign Investor Prevent Transfers to Related Companies?

Potentially.

Related-party transactions are frequently central to shareholder disputes.

Suppose a foreign investor owns 40% of Company A and the Turkish shareholder owns 60%.

The Turkish shareholder also controls Company B.

Company A suddenly begins transferring valuable assets to Company B or selling them substantially below market value.

Evidence of the relationship between the companies, transaction prices, corporate approvals, contracts and financial movements may support an application for urgent protection.

The court will want concrete evidence showing why immediate intervention is necessary.

What Evidence Is Needed to Obtain an Asset Freeze?

The foreign shareholder does not generally need to prove the entire lawsuit conclusively at the interim stage.

But mere allegations are insufficient.

Under Article 390/3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant must establish the relevant right and grounds for interim protection on a prima facie basis. Recent appellate decisions continue to emphasize this requirement. (Hukuk Asistan)

Useful evidence may include company bank records, suspicious transfers, accounting entries, invoices, proposed sale agreements, Trade Registry records, board or manager decisions, general assembly documents, emails and legally obtained communications demonstrating plans to dispose of assets.

Is Suspicion Alone Enough?

Usually not.

For example, saying:

“The Turkish partner controls the company, so I believe they may sell everything”

will ordinarily be much weaker than showing:

“The manager transferred three company properties to related parties during the last two months, has obtained a valuation for the company’s remaining property, and correspondence shows negotiations for its immediate sale.”

The second situation provides the court with a concrete factual basis for urgent intervention.

Turkish appellate practice has rejected applications based merely on abstract allegations of possible sham transactions where the claimant failed to submit evidence satisfying the prima facie standard. (Özgün Law Firm)

Can the Foreign Investor Obtain an Injunction Before Filing the Main Lawsuit?

Potentially, yes.

Urgent interim protection can, where statutory requirements are satisfied, be requested before the principal proceedings.

This can be extremely important where a property transfer is expected within days.

However, obtaining pre-action relief creates procedural obligations concerning commencement of the principal proceedings.

The shareholder should therefore prepare the underlying lawsuit at the same time rather than treating the injunction as an independent long-term solution.

Can an Injunction Be Requested After the Lawsuit Has Started?

Yes.

An interim injunction can also be requested during pending proceedings.

New circumstances can arise after litigation begins.

For example, the Turkish partner may initially continue operating normally but later begin disposing of company property after receiving the lawsuit.

The foreign shareholder can then consider whether those developments justify a new or expanded interim-measure request.

What Is the Difference Between Interim Injunction and Interim Attachment?

This distinction is extremely important.

Interim injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) generally protects a disputed right or property against changes that could undermine the litigation.

Interim attachment (ihtiyati haciz) is principally designed to secure a qualifying monetary claim by provisionally attaching assets of the debtor.

They are not interchangeable.

Current Turkish dispute-resolution guidance likewise distinguishes interim injunctions from interim attachment and evidence-preservation measures. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

The correct remedy therefore depends on what the foreign investor is actually claiming.

Example: When Interim Attachment May Be More Appropriate

Suppose a Turkish shareholder personally owes a foreign investor USD 2 million under a qualifying monetary obligation and begins transferring personal assets to third parties.

The dispute may justify consideration of interim attachment against the debtor’s assets rather than an injunction against assets belonging to the company.

By contrast, if the dispute concerns ownership, management or threatened disposal of specific company property, an interim injunction may be the more relevant mechanism.

Correctly identifying the legal owner of the asset is essential.

Can the Foreign Shareholder Freeze the Turkish Partner’s Personal Assets?

Not automatically.

Company assets and shareholder assets must be distinguished.

If the lawsuit concerns harm suffered by the company, that does not automatically justify freezing every personal asset belonging to the managing shareholder.

The claimant must establish an appropriate legal connection between the claim and the requested protection.

A recent 2026 Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal decision concerning a manager-liability dispute reiterated that interim measures under Article 389 require both a concrete interim-measure ground and prima facie proof. (Hukuk Asistan)

Can the Court Restrict a Company Manager’s Authority?

For limited liability companies, this can become an important remedy.

Article 630 of the Turkish Commercial Code provides that every shareholder may, where just cause exists, ask the court to remove or restrict a manager’s management and representation authority.

Serious violation of duties of care and loyalty or other statutory or contractual obligations can constitute just cause.

This remedy can be particularly relevant where the problem is not one specific asset but continuing abuse of management authority.

Can Misuse of Company Money Justify Removing the Manager?

Potentially, yes.

Suppose the managing shareholder repeatedly transfers company money into personal accounts, refuses to disclose accounting information and continues making unauthorized related-party payments.

Those circumstances may support an argument that the manager has seriously breached duties owed to the company.

Article 630 specifically recognizes serious violations of management duties as potential just cause for removing or restricting management and representation authority.

The evidence and seriousness of the conduct remain decisive.

Can a Court Appoint a Trustee or Kayyım?

This is possible in some circumstances, but foreign shareholders should not assume that courts routinely replace company management whenever shareholders disagree.

Recent 2026 appellate decisions show judicial caution concerning broad requests to appoint a trustee where existing company organs remain in place.

In particular, courts have rejected attempts effectively to make every management decision subject to trustee approval where the legal and evidentiary requirements were not established. (Hukuk Asistan)

A trustee request therefore requires careful legal framing.

Can the Court Require Every Payment to Be Approved by a Trustee?

Not automatically.

This type of request can effectively transfer control of the company from its lawful management to a court-appointed person.

Recent appellate reasoning indicates that Article 630 should not simply be interpreted as allowing existing managers to remain in office while every action within their authority becomes subject to a trustee’s approval. (Hukuk Asistan)

A more targeted interim measure may therefore be more realistic.

What If the Company Is a 50/50 Joint Venture?

Asset protection can become particularly important in a 50/50 company.

Neither shareholder may be capable of obtaining the corporate majority necessary to resolve the dispute.

Meanwhile, one partner may still control banking, accounting or operational management.

This can result in deadlock combined with asset dissipation risk.

The foreign investor may need to combine interim protection with proceedings concerning management authority, shareholder rights, dissolution or exit.

Can a Limited Company Be Dissolved for Just Cause?

Yes.

Article 636 of the Turkish Commercial Code permits a shareholder to seek dissolution of a limited liability company where just cause exists.

Importantly, the court does not necessarily have to dissolve the company.

Instead, it may order payment of the real value of the claimant’s shares and their exit from the company, or another appropriate and acceptable solution. (WipoLex)

This flexibility can be particularly valuable in foreign-investor disputes where continued partnership has become impossible.

Can the Court Protect Assets During a Just-Cause Dissolution Case?

Yes.

Article 636/4 expressly provides that when a dissolution action has been filed, the court may take necessary measures at the request of a party. (WipoLex)

This provision can become highly important in disputes involving allegations that company value is being stripped while the dissolution case is pending.

Recent 2026 appellate authority confirms that measures under Article 636/4 are intended to protect both shareholder rights and company assets, while still being subject to proportionality. (Hukuk Asistan)

Can the Foreign Shareholder Stop a General Assembly Decision?

Potentially.

If the disputed asset transfer or corporate restructuring depends upon a general assembly resolution, the foreign shareholder may need to challenge the resolution and consider requesting suspension of its implementation.

Interim relief can, depending on the circumstances, include suspension of corporate resolutions while their validity is litigated. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

Strict company-law deadlines may apply to challenges against general assembly decisions.

The shareholder should therefore act immediately after learning of the resolution.

Can an Asset Already Transferred to a Third Party Be Frozen?

This becomes more complicated.

The court must consider the third party’s legal position and the nature of the underlying claim.

An interim measure can sometimes be implemented through a third party possessing or controlling the disputed property, but Turkish procedural law does not generally permit unlimited interference with unrelated third parties. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

If the asset has already been transferred, the investor may need to challenge the transaction itself or pursue other recovery remedies.

This is one reason why intervention before completion of the transfer is usually preferable.

What If the Assets Were Transferred to the Partner’s Relative?

The relationship alone does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

However, it may become highly relevant when combined with other evidence.

For example, a company property sold to the manager’s spouse for 20% of market value immediately after a shareholder dispute begins presents a very different factual situation from an ordinary arm’s-length sale.

The investor should investigate the sale price, payment, beneficial ownership, timing and commercial justification.

What If Company Money Is Being Transferred Abroad?

Speed becomes especially important.

Turkish courts can impose interim measures concerning assets located within Turkey, but Turkish injunctions do not operate as worldwide asset-freezing orders. Protection over assets located abroad generally requires proceedings in the jurisdiction where those assets are situated. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

Therefore, if money has already reached a foreign jurisdiction, coordinated cross-border asset recovery may be necessary.

Can a Turkish Court Freeze Worldwide Assets?

Generally, no.

Turkish interim measures do not have automatic extraterritorial effect.

A Turkish court may protect assets located within Turkey, but it cannot simply issue a worldwide freezing order automatically binding banks and registries in other countries.

Separate proceedings may be required abroad. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

This is particularly important in disputes involving international holding structures.

Can Evidence Be Preserved Before It Disappears?

Yes.

Foreign investors should consider delil tespiti, or judicial preservation/determination of evidence, where relevant evidence may disappear or become difficult to obtain later.

Evidence preservation is recognized alongside interim injunction and interim attachment as an important form of provisional judicial protection. (Chambers Global Practice Guides)

This can become relevant for company books, electronic records, inventory, physical assets or other evidence whose condition may change.

Can Bank Transfers Be Used as Evidence?

Yes.

Bank movements can be among the strongest forms of evidence in an asset-dissipation case.

A pattern of transfers to the manager, relatives, related companies or unexplained third parties may support both the underlying claim and the request for interim protection.

The transfers should ideally be analyzed together with invoices, accounting descriptions, contracts and corporate approvals.

A payment should not be examined in isolation if the broader transaction structure reveals the real purpose.

What If the Foreign Investor Cannot Access the Company’s Bank Account?

Lack of direct access does not necessarily prevent litigation.

The foreign shareholder may rely on statutory information rights and judicial evidence mechanisms depending on the company structure and proceedings.

Available emails, partial statements, accounting documents and specific transaction information can help establish the basis for further judicial investigation.

The important point is to preserve whatever evidence is currently available rather than waiting until every missing document has been obtained.

Does the Foreign Investor Need to Provide Security?

A court granting interim protection can generally require the applicant to provide security against potential damage suffered by the opposing party if the measure later proves unjustified.

The amount depends on the circumstances and the court’s assessment.

Foreign investors should therefore incorporate potential security requirements into their litigation strategy.

A broad asset freeze affecting a substantial operating business may create greater potential damage than a narrowly targeted restriction.

What Happens If the Injunction Was Wrongfully Obtained?

The applicant can potentially face liability for damage caused by an unjustified interim measure.

This is another reason courts require evidence and proportionality.

An investor should not use an asset-freeze request merely as commercial pressure against the Turkish partner.

The requested measure should correspond to a genuine legal risk.

Can the Company Continue Operating During an Injunction?

Ideally, yes.

The strongest interim strategy often protects the disputed assets while allowing normal business operations to continue.

For example, preventing sale of a particular property may be preferable to freezing the company’s entire operating account.

Turkish appellate practice expressly emphasizes that interim protection in company disputes should not be structured so broadly that it effectively destroys the company’s financial viability before final judgment. (Hukuk Asistan)

How Quickly Can an Interim Measure Be Obtained?

Urgent interim applications can be considered before completion of the main litigation, and in appropriate circumstances courts can grant relief without waiting for the full merits to be decided.

The speed depends on the court, complexity, evidence and type of measure requested.

The foreign investor should therefore prepare a focused evidence package immediately.

A vague application containing hundreds of pages without identifying the specific threatened transaction may be less effective than a concise application demonstrating an imminent disposal.

Practical Example: Foreign Investor Discovers Asset Stripping

Assume a foreign investor owns 35% of a Turkish manufacturing company.

The Turkish majority shareholder controls management.

The foreign investor discovers that machinery, vehicles and company real estate are being transferred to companies controlled by the majority shareholder’s relatives.

Bank statements also show unexplained transfers.

Waiting for a director-liability lawsuit to conclude could allow the remaining assets to disappear.

The foreign investor may therefore consider a combination of measures: preservation of evidence, targeted interim injunctions over specific company assets, challenges to relevant corporate decisions, restriction or removal of management authority where statutory requirements exist, and liability proceedings to recover company losses.

If a qualifying monetary claim exists against a particular debtor, interim attachment may also need to be evaluated separately.

The appropriate strategy is therefore usually multi-layered rather than a single blanket freeze request.

2026 Approach of Turkish Courts

The 2026 appellate decisions available on shareholder disputes reinforce several important principles.

First, interim protection remains available in corporate disputes.

Second, the applicant must provide prima facie evidence demonstrating both the asserted right and the urgency requiring protection. (Hukuk Asistan)

Third, courts examine proportionality carefully. A measure protecting the investor should not unnecessarily paralyze or financially destroy the company. (Hukuk Asistan)

Fourth, requests for broad trustee control over company management are scrutinized carefully and are not automatically granted merely because shareholders are in conflict. (Hukuk Asistan)

For foreign investors, this means that the most effective application is usually specific, evidence-based and directed at identifiable assets or transactions.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a foreign shareholder freeze a Turkish company’s assets?

Potentially, yes. A shareholder can request appropriate interim measures where the statutory requirements are satisfied. Foreign nationality does not itself prevent such an application.

2. Can I freeze all of the company’s bank accounts?

You can request appropriate protection, but a complete freeze may be considered disproportionate if it unnecessarily prevents legitimate company operations.

3. Can I stop the company from selling real estate?

Potentially, particularly where there is concrete evidence of an imminent disposal that threatens the rights involved in the litigation.

4. Do I need proof before requesting an injunction?

Yes. Turkish procedural law generally requires prima facie proof of the asserted right and the grounds requiring interim protection.

5. Can suspicion that my Turkish partner will transfer assets be enough?

Usually not by itself. Concrete evidence of transfers, preparations for disposal or other asset-reducing conduct significantly strengthens the application.

6. Can the court remove the Turkish partner as manager?

In a limited company, a shareholder may ask the court to remove or restrict a manager’s management and representation authority where just cause exists under Article 630 of the Turkish Commercial Code.

7. Can a trustee be appointed to the company?

Potentially in appropriate circumstances, but trustee appointment is not automatic. Recent appellate practice demonstrates particular caution where functioning management organs remain in place.

8. Can I freeze my Turkish partner’s personal property?

Not automatically merely because you are involved in a company dispute. The requested measure must have an appropriate legal connection with the underlying claim. For qualifying monetary claims, interim attachment may be relevant.

9. What if company assets have already been transferred abroad?

Turkish interim measures generally operate against assets within Turkey. Recovery of assets located abroad may require separate proceedings in the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

10. What should I do if an asset transfer appears imminent?

Preserve the available evidence immediately and assess urgent interim protection before the transaction is completed. Once assets have been transferred through multiple parties or jurisdictions, recovery can become substantially more difficult.

Legal Support for Foreign Investors in Turkish Shareholder Disputes

A foreign shareholder who suspects that company assets are being transferred should not automatically seek to freeze everything the company owns. The stronger strategy is usually to identify which assets are at risk, who controls them, what transactions are imminent and what evidence demonstrates the threat.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign investors in Turkish shareholder disputes involving interim injunctions, asset protection, company bank accounts, related-party transfers, manager removal, director liability, corporate deadlock, special audits, shareholder exits and asset recovery.

Where there is evidence that a Turkish partner is actively selling property, transferring company funds or moving assets to related companies, Fırat Fesih Kaya can assess whether urgent interim measures should accompany the main commercial proceedings.

Early intervention can be particularly important because a successful final judgment may provide limited practical protection if the company’s valuable assets have already disappeared.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile Phone: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yildirim Tower, Balgat, Cankaya / Ankara, Turkey