Crypto Account Frozen Under MASAK Article 19/A: Court Ruling

For a user whose crypto account has a withdrawal request left unapproved, everything often comes down to one question: why is the platform not releasing the money, and how long can the wait last? When the platform says "there is a MASAK decision", the debate moves to the seven-working-day postponement period in the anti-money-laundering legislation. If the freeze continues after that period has run out, does the user hold a claim strong enough to obtain a precautionary attachment over the platform's assets while the case is pending? The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 44th Civil Chamber, answered this question, from the angle of precautionary attachment, in a freeze of roughly 250,000 US dollars.

In its decision dated 11.09.2025 (Docket No. E.2025/977, Decision No. K.2025/1084), the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 44th Civil Chamber found correct the interim decision rejecting the precautionary attachment request of a user whose account with a crypto asset service provider had been frozen on the basis of Article 19/A of Law No. 5549. According to the Chamber, because the reason for the freeze and its lawfulness require a full trial, the existence of a due monetary claim has not been proven even approximately. The decision was given unanimously and is final.

🧊 The Frozen Crypto Account and the Case

The parties to the dispute are a crypto asset service provider and a user who holds an account on that platform. According to the account reflected in the decision, events unfolded as follows:

The case is an action to cancel the objection to enforcement proceedings (without a court judgment) started against the platform. As a partial case under Article 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), the user requested for now that the proceedings continue for USD 1,000, together with enforcement denial compensation of at least 20%, and a precautionary attachment over the platform's movable and immovable property and its rights and receivables held by third parties. As the ground for the precautionary attachment, it was argued that a company trading in crypto assets could move its assets away quickly and irreversibly.

⚖️ The Interim Decision and the Appeal Stage

The Istanbul 5th Commercial Court of First Instance rejected the precautionary attachment request by an interim decision dated 26.06.2025 (2025/390 E.). According to the court, three questions require a full trial:

• Whether the account was frozen unlawfully,
• Whether the user has a claim that has fallen due and, if so, its amount,
• Whether, in this case, a claim can be made in foreign currency.

The user's lawyer appealed, arguing that Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 is a provision restricting the right to property, that the legislator provided a seven-working-day absolute period, and that Article 4 of the implementing regulation also provides that the postponement period cannot exceed seven working days. In its reply to the appeal, the platform argued that it had carried out the transaction postponement decisions issued by MASAK from 17.02.2025 onwards, on 19.02.2025, 06.03.2025, 18.03.2025, 27.03.2025, 11.04.2025, 22.04.2025, 07.05.2025, 14.05.2025, 30.05.2025, 12.06.2025, 23.06.2025 and 04.07.2025, and that the restriction on the account was within time and based on current decisions. The platform also stated that those who fulfil their statutory obligations cannot be held legally or criminally liable, and that this could be proven by a letter of enquiry to MASAK.

📜 The Due-Claim Requirement for Precautionary Attachment

The Chamber based its assessment on two provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. Under Article 257/1 İİK, the creditor of a monetary debt that is not secured by a pledge and has fallen due may request a precautionary attachment. Article 258/1 İİK provides that the creditor must show the court evidence that persuades it of the claim and, where necessary, of the grounds for attachment. The steps of reasoning in the decision are as follows:

The Chamber rejected the appeal on the merits under Article 353/1-b-1 HMK. The operative part of the decision states that it is final under Articles 362/1-f and 394/5 HMK. The last paragraph of Article 258 İİK likewise opens an appeal against the rejection of a precautionary attachment request and treats the regional court of appeal's decision on this point as final.

An important aspect of the decision is that the dispute over the duration of the freeze is not, on its own, enough to show that the claim is due. While the user argued that the seven-working-day period had been exceeded, the platform argued that a new MASAK decision existed for each postponement period. Which of the two accounts is correct will be determined in the trial on the merits, not at a stage such as precautionary attachment, where decisions are made quickly.

🧭 Article 19/A of Law 5549 and Postponement Decisions

Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 on Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime was added in 2016 by Law No. 6704. Under the provision, transactions that are attempted or ongoing at or through obliged parties may be suspended for seven working days, or not allowed to take place during that period, on suspicion that the assets are linked to the offence of laundering or terrorist financing. This power belongs to the Minister and, under a sentence added by Law No. 7262, may be delegated to a deputy minister.

The third paragraph of the article provides an administrative fine, equal to the transaction amount and not less than fifty thousand Turkish lira, for obliged parties that carry out a transaction that was suspended or not allowed to take place, contrary to the decision. Article 10 of the same Law provides that natural and legal persons who fulfil their obligations under the Law cannot be held legally or criminally liable. The platform's defence in its reply to the appeal rests on this framework; the Chamber made no finding on whether the defence is well founded and left the matter to the trial on the merits.

The point debated in practice is whether the seven-working-day period is an absolute upper limit for a single transaction, or whether successive postponement decisions, each starting a separate period, are possible. This decision does not settle that debate; it says only that, while the debate continues, the approximate proof required for a precautionary attachment has not been established.

For the relationship between a freeze and seizure arising from a criminal investigation, and for the property-right dimension of a long freeze, see the series decision of the Constitutional Court on a three-year freeze on a bank accountTR. The freezing of money transferred through fraud at the receiving bank, and its relation to attachment, is dealt with in Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber decision 2026/1579TR.

🗂️ How Is the Lawfulness of the Freeze Determined?

The decision relates to the precautionary attachment stage; it contains no finding on the merits of the action to cancel the objection. The elements that may be decisive in the trial on the merits can be drawn from the parties' statements in the decision as follows:

• The existence and dates of MASAK's postponement decisions: The platform stated that there were twelve separate postponement decisions from 19.02.2025 to 04.07.2025 and that these could be proven by a letter of enquiry to the MASAK Presidency.
• Gaps between the decisions: The user's claim is that the freeze continued also in periods when the seven working days had run out and there was no new decision. Whether the decisions followed one another without a break will be important in assessing this claim.
• The nature and amount of the frozen asset: The request was made in USD; the first-instance court also listed whether a claim can be made in foreign currency among the issues requiring a full trial.
• The platform's status as an obliged party: The platform argued that it is a crypto asset service provider on the SPK list and is required to apply suspicious transaction reporting and postponement decisions under Law No. 5549.
• Claims of loss: Claims such as unpaid cheques and promissory notes and loss of commercial reputation are facts that need to be proven separately from the existence of the claim.

🆕 Legislative Note and the Limits of the Decision

Crypto asset service providers were brought under SPK supervision through provisions added to Capital Markets Law No. 6362 by Law No. 7518. The platform in the decision likewise argued that it appears on the SPK list and applies the obligations in the anti-money-laundering legislation. As a result, freezes on crypto accounts come to be discussed within the same legal framework as freezes on bank accounts.

For a different dispute on precautionary attachment in a crypto context, see the series decision of the Regional Court of Appeal on a promissory note obtained by coercion in a crypto lossTR.

💬 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.