Citizenship-for-Investment Promise Fraud: Turkish Court Ruling

For foreigners living in Türkiye, citizenship often means a long bureaucratic process and a high-value investment. This uncertainty creates fertile ground for people who present themselves as "insiders": "My wife holds an important position in the state and manages state funds; if you pay money into the fund, you will get citizenship." When money sent to the other side on such a promise cannot be recovered, is the picture merely "an intermediary who did not keep his word", or is it a deception of concern to criminal law?

In its decision of 15.06.2026, Docket No. E.2026/531, Decision No. K.2026/6492, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation set aside in the interest of the law the rejection of an objection against a prosecutor's decision of non-prosecution. The complaint concerned the transfer of USD 30,000 on the statement that citizenship would be granted in return for investment in state funds, and the prosecutor had treated the matter as "legal in nature". The Chamber found that the decision, given without even taking the suspects' statements, rested on an incomplete investigation.

🛂 Structure of the Promise: A Fund, an Official Spouse and Citizenship

The allegations reflected in the text of the decision show a scheme somewhat different from classic investment fraud patterns. What is promised here is not a direct profit or interest, but the provision of a public act, namely citizenship, in return for the money paid. The facts reported in the Court of Cassation decision are as follows:

The weight of the scheme rests on the complainant's unfamiliarity with the legislation and with how public institutions work. Putting together the notions of "state fund", "official spouse" and "investment" may give an outside observer the impression of being part of an official process.

📄 Why Did the Prosecutor and the Criminal Judgeship of Peace Say "Legal Dispute"?

The Antalya Chief Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to prosecute the suspects by its decision dated 10.10.2024, Investigation No. 2024/94245, Decision No. 2024/47321. In summary, the reasoning reflected in the decision is as follows:

• From the correspondence submitted by the complainant, the matter concerned help in obtaining a passport,
• initially 30,000 TL was to be received and a contract was to be drawn up later,
• no explanation was written on the money transfer,
• the relationship between the parties was legal in nature and the statutory elements of fraud had not arisen,
• any receivable could be claimed before the civil courts.

The objection to this decision was rejected by the Antalya 6th Criminal Judgeship of Peace by its decision dated 02.01.2025, Miscellaneous Case No. 2024/6629, and, since the decision is final under Article 271/4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), it became final on the same day. This final decision was brought before the Chamber by the request of the Ministry of Justice dated 26.12.2025 and the written opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation dated 12.01.2026, No. KYB-2026/764.

⚖️ The Court of Cassation's Reasons for Setting Aside in the Interest of the Law

The Chamber first recalled the framework of Articles 160, 172 and 173 of the CMK: as soon as the public prosecutor learns of a situation suggesting an offence, he must begin investigating the truth of the matter and collect evidence both for and against the suspect. A decision of non-prosecution can be given only when no evidence capable of establishing sufficient suspicion has been obtained. The criminal judgeship of peace examining an objection may reject it if there is no sufficient evidence, may accept it if there is sufficient evidence, or may order the investigation to be widened because of an incomplete investigation.

In the present case the Chamber identified the following deficiencies:

• The suspects' statements were not taken; even the person shown as the recipient on the receipt was not heard.
• The mobile phone containing the correspondence submitted by the complainant's lawyer was not obtained, the correspondence was not established, and those in a foreign language were not translated into Turkish.
• The identity of the third person named in the correspondence was not determined and his knowledge was not sought.
• File No. 2024/125655 of the Antalya General Enforcement Office was not obtained and examined.
• It was not investigated whether there are other investigation files against the suspects for similar acts.

The Chamber found the reasoning containing the "legal nature" finding faulty and the investigation incomplete; it held that rejecting the objection, when an order widening the investigation should have been given, was contrary to law. As a result, the request for setting aside in the interest of the law was accepted, the criminal judgeship of peace decision was unanimously set aside in the interest of the law under Article 309/3 of the CMK, and the file was sent back to its place of origin for action under Article 309/4-a of the CMK.

🔎 Points That May Be Discussed Under Criminal Law

The subject of the decision is a decision at the investigation stage; the Chamber made no final characterisation of which offence the act constitutes, and said only that a "legal dispute" conclusion cannot be reached without collecting the evidence. Nevertheless, when the alleged facts are read together with certain provisions of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the following points may come up in the investigation:

Which provision applies can only be determined by the evidence to be collected. This is also where the importance of the decision lies: before a characterisation can be discussed, the suspects' defence, the content of the correspondence and the flow of money must first be established.

🧾 Investigative Steps Listed in the Decision

The Chamber expressly listed the steps to be taken as part of widening the investigation. This list is notable because it shows which evidence is decisive in investment-related complaints involving communication in a foreign language:

• Suspect statements: The defence of the owner of the account to which the money was sent and of the person who made the promise.
• Digital correspondence: Obtaining the phone containing the correspondence, establishing its content and translating messages in a foreign language into Turkish.
• Third-party testimony: Determining the identity and address of the person named in the correspondence and obtaining his knowledge.
• Related files: File No. 2024/125655 of the Antalya General Enforcement Office and certified copies of the evidence relating to the investigation.
• Similar acts: Whether there are other investigations against the suspects using the same method.

The finding in the prosecutor's decision that "the correspondence concerned help with a passport" was made before the full content and translation of the correspondence had entered the file. The Chamber's approach implies that a partial reading of some of the documents cannot leave out the "state fund" account that forms the core of the allegation. Similarly, the limits of the "legal dispute" reasoning in complaints involving investment promises are also addressed in the series' decision on a land investment promiseTR and decision on money collected under an investment adviser promiseTR.

🏛️ Comparison with Citizenship by Investment Through the Official Route

To understand the background of the case, it helps to look briefly at the legal framework. Article 12 of the Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 lists the cases in which citizenship may be acquired exceptionally by Presidential decision. Sub-paragraph (b) of that article covers those who obtained a residence permit under Article 31(1)(j) of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458, and holders of the Turquoise Card. In addition, there must be no circumstance constituting an obstacle in terms of national security and public order.

The conclusions that follow from this framework, read together with the facts of the case, can be summarised as follows:

• Citizenship by investment is an administrative process defined in law and carried out by public authorities; at the end of the process the decision belongs to the President.
• The text of the law contains no provision that money sent to the personal account of a public official or of a relative would result in citizenship.
• In this case the money was sent not to a structure described as a "state fund" but to the personal account of one of the suspects. This fact explains why the flow of money is among the matters the decision says must be investigated.

❔ Frequently Asked Questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and the other decisions in the series are in the Precedent DecisionsTR section.