Crypto Asset Injunction and Attachment in Türkiye

Whether crypto assets can be made the subject of provisional legal protection in a dispute depends on with whom, and in what capacity, the asset is held. The seventh paragraph of Article 35/C of Law No. 6362 draws a decisive line at this point.

⚗️ Two Different Situations, Two Different Outcomes

When provisional legal protection over crypto assets is discussed, the following distinction must be made first:

• For the debt of the service provider: The law expressly provides that no precautionary injunction can be placed on cash and crypto assets belonging to customers and that they cannot be attached. This protection also applies to public receivables.
• For the customer's own debt: The segregation rule does not come into play here. The customer's rights and receivables with the platform can be made the subject of provisional legal protection under the general provisions.

Overlooking this distinction is one of the most common mistakes in practice. The statutory basis and scope of the protection are covered in detail in our article on the asset segregation ruleTR.

📕 Precautionary Injunction or Precautionary Attachment

In Turkish law, provisional legal protection falls under two main headings. Precautionary attachment is applied for money claims under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law; precautionary injunction is applied for disputes other than money claims under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Which route comes into play for crypto assets depends on the nature of the request: is the collection of a sum of money sought, or the return of a specific asset in kind, or the prevention of its transfer? This characterisation directly affects whether the request is admissible.

🔗 The Problem of Enforceability: Who Holds Control

That provisional legal protection is legally possible and that it is practically enforceable are separate things. For crypto assets, control depends on control of the private key.

If the asset is held with a service provider, the order can be enforced by directing it to that institution. With self-custody the situation is different; the addressee of the order is the person directly, and enforceability depends on technical realities. For the framework of this difference, see our articles on self-custody risksTR and the difference between hot and cold walletsTR.

🎯 Specificity of the Request

For requests for provisional legal protection, the asset on which an order is sought must be identifiable. For crypto assets this is achieved through a wallet address, account details or an account description with the platform.

A general and abstract request makes it difficult to obtain an enforceable order. For this reason, the clarity of the records on which the request rests is one of the factors that decide the fate of the process.

🌍 Cases with a Foreign Element

Crypto assets are recorded on an infrastructure that knows no borders; court orders, by contrast, have territorial effect. Where the asset is held with an institution established abroad, enforcing the order requires a separate legal process.

Our article on FATF standardsTR can serve as a guide to the framework of international standards in this area.

📌 Related Topics

Attachment in enforcement proceedingsTR · Seizure and confiscationTR · Loss of a private keyTR

❓ Frequently Asked Questions