Fake Brokerage Account: Court of Cassation Orders Full Repayment

Savun Law & Consultancy · Updated 28 October 2026

An investor receives a receipt every month, holds letterheaded and stamped portfolio statements, and keeps a copy of the contract in a drawer. One day, after hearing that irregularities have occurred at the brokerage firm, the investor asks for the money back, and the firm's answer is short: "No account has been opened in your name at our branch." The account number does exist, but it belongs to a different customer in another city. In such a picture, who is responsible for the loss, and to what extent? Does the investor's "belief in an excessively high interest rate" reduce everyone's liability by the same proportion?

In its decision of 25.09.2024, Docket No. (E.) 2023/3881, Decision No. (K.) 2024/6746, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) rejected the objections against holding the brokerage firm liable under Article 66 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) with a deduction for the investor's own fault. It also stated that the branch manager who personally received the money was unjustly enriched in proportion to the documents he issued and is obliged to return the whole amount he received, and on that point it unanimously reversed the Regional Court of Appeal's decision.

In short: The claimant, who wanted to put savings to work at a branch of a brokerage firm, handed over money against receipts to an employee who served as deputy branch manager between 2013 and 2015; the claimant was given an account opening form, framework agreements and customer portfolio statements. It later emerged that the account with that number had never been opened in the claimant's name and belonged to another customer of the firm. The court of first instance found the claimant and the brokerage firm 50% at fault and awarded TRY 378,766.63; the appeals were rejected on the merits. The Court of Cassation rejected the brokerage firm's appeal, but reversed the decision as to the employee who received the money, stating that under Article 77 TBK the whole amount must be returned.

What this article covers

Receipts, contracts and the account that did not exist
What did the brokerage firm argue?
Fifty per cent fault: first instance and appeal
Court of Cassation: two defendants, two different liabilities
The difference between Article 66 TBK and Article 77 TBK
What does the decision mean in practice?
Questions readers may ask

🧾 Receipts, contracts and the account that did not exist

According to the account in the statement of claim, the claimant went to a branch of a brokerage firm on the recommendation of acquaintances and met the person working there as deputy manager. From then on, the same employee dealt with the claimant and guided the claimant. From 27.09.2013 onwards, the following documents were signed at the company's address and given to the claimant:

Framework agreements for brokerage in capital markets instruments and for repo and reverse repo transactions,
An electronic trading services agreement and a numbered copy of a contract,
An account number said to be set up in the claimant's name, together with an account opening form,
Cash receipts for the money handed over, and letterheaded, stamped and signed customer portfolio statements.

Between 27.09.2013 and 25.05.2015 the claimant paid in money against receipts. According to the documents the claimant was given, the account balance reached TRY 996,005.00 on 21.04.2015. After hearing that irregular transactions had taken place at the company, the claimant asked for the money; by a letter dated 25.05.2015 the company stated that there was no account belonging to the claimant at the branch. Noting that a criminal complaint had also been filed, the claimant demanded TRY 996,005.00, together with the annual 13.75% rate written in the portfolio statement, from the brokerage firm and the employee jointly and severally.

🛡️ What did the brokerage firm argue?

The brokerage firm put forward a defence that moved responsibility away from itself:

Transactions at the firm can only be carried out with a double signature; the claimant is a qualified investor and was in a position to know this.
An inquiry made after the claimant's application of 20.05.2015 found no account belonging to the claimant.
None of the money allegedly given to the employee was deposited into the company's accounts.
The account number written in the documents belongs to another customer transacting at the firm's branch in a different city.

The employee who received the money did not submit a statement of defence and, at the various stages, asked through his lawyer for the claim to be rejected.

⚖️ Fifty per cent fault: first instance and appeal

The İzmir 1st Consumer Court (Docket No. 2017/221 E., Decision No. 2019/159 K.) calculated the net receivable as of the filing date of 11.06.2015 at TRY 670,700.00 and the accrued interest at TRY 86,833.27. According to the court, faced with a promise of above-average interest income, the claimant could have learned about interest rates through a simple search in the market and could have become suspicious of the transaction; the claimant could also have found out from another member of the company's staff whether the savings had really been deposited with the company. The claimant and the brokerage firm were therefore held 50% at fault, and the court ordered TRY 378,766.63 to be collected from the defendants jointly and severally, with statutory interest from the filing date.

The 20th Civil Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal (Docket No. 2020/1500 E., Decision No. 2023/196 K.) upheld this result. According to the chamber:

The brokerage firm is in principle liable for its employee's acts under the employer's liability in Article 66 TBK, and there was a lack of internal control at the firm.
The claimant carried out no inquiry other than the employee's briefings and did not contact any other employee of the company.
According to the expert report, the interest rate set out in the portfolio statements was excessively high compared with Central Bank records and market conditions on the dates the money was paid in.
The claimant therefore bears contributory fault in the occurrence of the loss.

Both sides' appeals were rejected on the merits; the decision was then appealed to the Court of Cassation by both the claimant and the brokerage firm.

🔍 Court of Cassation: two defendants, two different liabilities

The Court of Cassation structured its decision in two paragraphs. In the first, stating that there was no error in the first instance decision and that rejecting the appeal on the merits was correct, it rejected all of the brokerage firm's objections and the claimant's objections other than those in the second paragraph. The brokerage firm's liability under Article 66 TBK, and the contributory fault reduction applied within that liability, thus passed appellate review.

The second paragraph concerns the employee who received the money. From the case, the chamber established the following facts:

To put the savings to work, the claimant carried out the transactions with the defendant employee, who was a manager of the company.
The employee gave the claimant an account opening form, a brokerage and repo/reverse repo framework agreement bearing the same number, an electronic trading services agreement, cash receipts and customer portfolio statements.
Even so, no account was opened with the company in the claimant's name under that number; the account belongs to another customer of the company.

According to the Court of Cassation, in these circumstances the employee was unjustly enriched in proportion to the documents issued for the money received from the claimant and, under Article 77/1 TBK, is obliged to return all of it. It found it incorrect that the court, without taking this into account, ordered the amount determined according to the brokerage firm's fault to be collected from both defendants jointly and severally. The claimant's appeal against the employee was accepted, the Regional Court of Appeal's decision was reversed and set aside, and the case was sent to the court of first instance under Article 373/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). A hearing attorney's fee of TRY 17,100.00 was also awarded.

📎 Full text of the decision: The official text of the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 25.09.2024, Docket No. E.2023/3881, Decision No. K.2024/6746, is available here as a PDF.

📚 The difference between Article 66 TBK and Article 77 TBK

The real importance of the decision is that it shows two defendants in the same event can be held liable on two separate legal bases.

Article 66 TBK – employer's liability: An employer is obliged to compensate damage caused by an employee to others while carrying out the work assigned. In a business, an employer is liable for damage caused through the business's activities unless it proves that the business's working order was suitable for preventing the damage. This is a liability for compensation; therefore the injured party's own fault may lead to a reduction of the compensation. In this case, the appeal court's finding of "lack of internal control" formed the basis of this liability, while its finding of "relying on an excessive interest rate without any inquiry" formed the basis of the reduction.

Article 77 TBK – unjust enrichment: A person who is enriched at another's expense without a valid reason is obliged to return that enrichment. Here the measure is not the injured party's fault but the value that passed into the enriched person's assets. Because it found that the employee took money from the claimant "in proportion to the documents he issued", the Court of Cassation accepted that the repayment obligation is the whole amount shown in those documents. The investor's carelessness does not reduce the obligation of the person who received the money to give it back.

This distinction clarifies a situation often met in investment relationships: when a person working inside an institutional structure collects money off the books, the institution's liability and the liability of the person who actually received the money are not subject to the same measure. In the same way, the decision on a bank's liability for money collected by a bank employee with a promise of returns, a bank employee's promise of returnsTR, and the decision dealing with proof of a fund account that never appeared in the records, an investment fund account tracked by hand slip, can also be read together with this article.

🧭 What does the decision mean in practice?

The conclusions drawn from the decision, limited to the facts of the case, can be summarised as follows:

A brokerage firm may be held liable under Article 66 TBK for its employee's off-the-books transactions; the lack of internal control was seen as one of the main grounds for this liability.
Relying on a return that is excessively high compared with market conditions, without any inquiry, was treated as contributory fault in the compensation claim against the firm.
This reduction was not applied to the employee who personally received the money and showed its receipt through documents he issued himself; under Article 77 TBK the employee was held obliged to return the whole amount received.
The fact that the account number in the contract and portfolio statements given to the customer belonged to another customer was assessed as the decisive fact showing that no real account relationship had been established.

After the reversal, the court of first instance is expected to re-determine the amount to be returned by the employee according to the amounts in the documents; as for the brokerage firm, its liability with a fault reduction has already passed appellate review.

💬 Questions readers may ask

Why was the brokerage firm held liable for only half of the money its employee collected?

The court of first instance and the regional court of appeal accepted that the firm is in principle liable under Article 66 TBK. However, the fact that the interest rate written in the portfolio statements was excessively high compared with market conditions, and that the claimant made no other inquiry, was treated as contributory fault, and the fault proportions were set at 50%. The Court of Cassation rejected the brokerage firm's objections to this decision.

Why was the employee who received the money held liable for all of it?

The Court of Cassation stated that the employee was unjustly enriched, in proportion to the documents he issued himself, by the money received from the claimant. Because Article 77/1 TBK provides that a person enriched without a valid reason must return that enrichment, the repayment obligation was set by the amount of the enrichment, not by the injured party's fault.

Did the claimant being a qualified investor affect the result?

The brokerage firm argued that the claimant was a qualified investor and should have known the double signature rule. The decision does not address this defence separately; the courts based their fault assessment mainly on the excessive interest rate and the claimant's failure to make inquiries. The Court of Cassation rejected all of the firm's objections, including those on this point.

Where was the case sent after the reversal?

The Court of Cassation reversed and set aside the regional court of appeal's decision rejecting the appeal on the merits and, under Article 373/1 HMK, sent the case directly to the court of first instance, that is, the İzmir 1st Consumer Court. A copy of the decision was also sent to the regional court of appeal.

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and further decision commentaries on investment disputes are available in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.

This article is for general information only; its content is compiled from the partial reversal decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation published in the Court of Cassation decision search system, and from the first instance and appeal stages reported in that decision. The identities of the parties and the employee are anonymous in the source and are not included; distinguishing details such as the account number have also been removed. The assessments on fault proportions and the repayment obligation rest on the documents and expert findings in the specific case; cases with different facts may reach different results. Savun Law & Consultancy cannot be held responsible for any application, lawsuit or defence made on the basis of this article.

3 attorneys registered with the Istanbul Bar Association · verifyGoogle 4.8 ★ · 123+ reviews · seeOffice in Istanbul · English-speaking team · about us

Questions & answers · Istanbul Bar Association 75235

Have a question about this topic? Ask our lawyer.

Write your question and Attorney Veli Savun will answer it on this page. You do not need to give your name.

Example questions — tap one and adapt it to your situation:

Answers are general information only; they do not create a lawyer–client relationship and are not legal advice on your specific case. All questions & answers →

This page is an English adaptation of our Turkish article Sahte Hesapta Tam İade Borcu – Yargıtay 11. HD 2024/6746.

More from Investment Fraud & Crypto Law in Türkiye

All articles in this section →