Cold Wallet USDT Case: Court of Cassation Quashes Acquittal

The 1,500,000 TL sent by the intervening party turns into 42,865 USDT in one defendant's account, then moves to a cold wallet, and from there to another defendant's cold wallet. The defendant at the last link says the crypto was payment for a social media service he provided to a company; the first-instance court acquits him and the regional court of appeal upholds the acquittal. The Court of Cassation stops at one gap: there is neither a record nor an invoice.

In its decision of 21 May 2026 (Docket No. E.2026/1957, Decision No. K.2026/5736), the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments against five defendants convicted of qualified fraud, but unanimously quashed the supplementary appeal decision on the acquittal of the defendant who received USDT in his cold wallet and did not support his defence with documents.

⚖️ The judgments of the lower courts

The offence in the case is described in the heading of the decision as fraud committed by "presenting oneself as a public official or as an employee of a bank, insurance company or credit institution, or claiming to be connected with such institutions". The Court of Cassation decision does not describe in detail the words used to deceive the intervening party; it concentrates mainly on the flow of the money and the role of the defendants.

In its decision of 24 September 2025 (Docket No. 2025/253, Decision No. 2025/638), the Bakırköy 5th High Criminal Court ruled as follows:

1. One defendant: a prison sentence and a judicial fine of 7,050,000.00 TL under Articles 158/1-(l) (last sentence) and 158/3 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, together with Articles 52, 53 and 58, and application of the recidivism provisions.
2. Four defendants: the same provisions, with the discretionary reduction under Article 62 applied, giving each of them 8 years 9 months in prison and a judicial fine of 5,875,000.00 TL.
3. One defendant: acquittal under Article 223/2-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271.

The application of Article 158/3 TCK shows that the court accepted the offence to have been committed jointly by three or more persons. In its decision of 14 January 2026 (Docket No. 2025/3760, Decision No. 2026/16), the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 27th Criminal Chamber, rejected on the merits the appeals of the convicted defendants. In a supplementary decision of 28 January 2026, the same Chamber also rejected on the merits the appeal of the intervening party's counsel against the acquittal.

📝 The grounds of appeal of the defendants and the intervening party

The defence counsel of the convicted defendants relied on different points:

Counsel for one defendant also requested a review with a hearing. The Chamber rejected this request, at its discretion and unanimously, under Article 299/1 of Law No. 5271 as amended by Article 94 of Law No. 7079.

Counsel for the intervening party argued that the acquitted defendant, although able to submit documents on his other business, could not submit any document on the event that is the subject of the offence, that this indicated participation in the offence, and that he took part in the flow of money in unity of intent and action with the others; counsel asked for the acquittal to be set aside.

⏱️ The time limit first: where the Chamber departed from the prosecutor's opinion

The written opinion of the prosecutor proposed rejecting the intervening party's counsel's appeal against the acquittal because it was out of time. The Chamber did not agree. According to the decision, the supplementary decision was served on the intervening party's counsel on 7 February 2026 and the appeal petition was filed on 20 February 2026. The Chamber found the appeal to be within the time limit and examined the merits.

Under Article 291/1 of Law No. 5271, an appeal on points of law is made within two weeks from the date the judgment is served together with its reasoning. The period between service and the date of the petition falls within this limit. The point matters because it shows by which service the time limit for appeal is calculated when the regional court of appeal rejects an appeal in a supplementary decision.

🪙 The money trail: from bank account to cold wallet

The reasoning of the Court of Cassation for quashing sets out the path of the money step by step:

1. The intervening party sent 1,500,000 TL to the account of one of the defendants.
2. 42,865 USDT in crypto currency was bought with this money.
3. The USDT was sent to a cold wallet address, the end of which is masked in the decision.
4. From there it was transferred to the cold wallet account of the acquitted defendant.

In his defence the defendant stated that another company, which had contacted a company registered in his name, sent him this crypto currency in return for "creating a social media account with no advertising limit". The Chamber found that, although the defendant said he acted on behalf of the company, he could not present any record or invoice. It therefore concluded that the defendant took part in the alleged offence and that acquitting him, when a conviction should have been ordered, was unlawful.

The notable point of the decision is that a claim of a commercial relationship was not considered sufficient when left to a mere statement. The fact that the crypto asset reached the final stop of the money and the fact that the defence remained undocumented were assessed together. The intervening party's ground of appeal, "there are documents for his other business but none for this one", is consistent with this assessment.

In an earlier decision on this site, crypto purchase treated as evidence in impersonation of a bank employeeTR, the purchase of a crypto asset in the defendant's name with the money from the offence was among the grounds for conviction. In the present decision, the acquittal of the person at the last link, where the crypto asset changed hands, is the point in dispute.

🧾 The two separate outcomes at the Court of Cassation

(A) For the five convicted defendants: The Chamber accepted that the trial procedures were conducted in accordance with procedure and law, that the claims and defences were discussed together with the evidence in the reasoned judgment, that the court's conviction was based on conclusive data, and that the legal characterisation of the offences and the sanctions were correctly determined. The review on appeal was limited to Article 289/1 CMK; since no unlawfulness was found, the appeals were rejected on the merits under Article 302/1 CMK, in line with the prosecutor's opinion, and the judgments were upheld.

(B) For the acquitted defendant: The intervening party's counsel's appeal was found well-founded, and the supplementary decision of 28 January 2026 of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 27th Criminal Chamber, was quashed under Article 302/2 CMK, contrary to the prosecutor's opinion. The case was referred to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation, to be sent to the Bakırköy 5th High Criminal Court under Article 304/1 CMK.

📗 Relevant legal provisions and Law No. 7589

The decision is dated 21 May 2026; Article 158/4 TCK was added after the decision, by Law No. 7589. For this reason the decision contains no assessment of this provision. However, the case includes defendants who say they gave their IBAN details to others and did not use the account themselves. Because the new provision brings a reduction specific to cases where participation is limited to giving account or payment instrument details, assessing the contribution of each defendant separately becomes important in similar cases. Accounts at crypto asset service providers are also covered by the article.

❔ Frequently Asked Questions

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