Fake Bank Guarantee Investment Fraud: Court of Cassation 2026/5239

A livestock breeder who cannot pay a bank loan and wants to sell his farm is approached by two people who say they want to make a "large investment" in it. To convince the hesitant producer, a bank guarantee letter worth EUR 3,000,000 and a few company documents are put on the table. The farm is handed over, the animals are slaughtered and sold within a short time, and what remains is a protocol and a promissory note for TRY 330,000. The court of first instance acquits the defendants. The Court of Cassation, despite the years that have passed, sees the picture not as a debt relationship but as a deception planned from the start.

In its decision dated 07.05.2026, Docket No. E.2021/30944, Decision No. K.2026/5239, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation unanimously quashed the acquittals, contrary to the opinion for affirmation in the prosecutor's written opinion, of the defendants who had created the impression of investing and, by showing a guarantee letter belonging to a bank that does not exist, disposed of the movable property on the intervening party's farm.

🐄 How Was the Farm Investment Promise Built?

According to the events recounted in the decision, the intervening party earns his living from farming and livestock, caring for animals he bought with a bank loan. Unable to repay the loan, he fell into financial difficulty and considered selling his farm. One of the defendants learned of this in the district where he lived and, together with the other defendant, met the intervening party and created the impression that they wanted to make a large investment in the farm.

Two kinds of documents were used to dispel the intervening party's doubts:

The intervening party did not want to make a formal sale without receiving the money. A protocol was therefore drawn up, signed by one defendant as debtor and the other as guarantor, and a promissory note of TRY 330,000.00 was given to the intervening party. According to the Chamber's findings, the defendants had neither the means nor the intention to pay; the aim was to be able to dispose of the movable property on the farm, above all the animals belonging to the intervening party. Indeed, as soon as they actually took over the farm, they had the animals slaughtered and sold, and disposed of the other property as well.

📄 The First-Instance Acquittal and the Prosecutor's Opinion

The case was heard by an assize court under Docket No. 2015/85, Decision No. 2016/26. The defendants were tried on two types of offence: fraud committed by using public institutions and organisations or similar legal entities as a tool, and fraud committed by using information systems, banks or credit institutions as a tool. The court ruled that the defendants be acquitted.

The intervening party's counsel appealed the judgment. The written opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Cassation, on the other hand, recommended that the acquittals be affirmed. After establishing in its preliminary examination that the judgments were open to appeal, that the intervening party had the right and standing to appeal and that the appeal was lodged in time, the Chamber went into the merits.

⚖️ The Chamber's Reasons for Quashing

The Court of Cassation assessed the acquittal along a single axis: an error in the assessment of the evidence. According to the Chamber, when the following elements in the case file are considered together, the defendants must be convicted:

1. The intervening party's account: the consistent and coherent statements, at every stage, of an intervening party who did not know the defendants before the events and had no reason to falsely accuse them.
2. The defendants' defences: defences that contradict one another across the stages.
3. The documents: the bank guarantee letter, the protocol and the promissory note copy in the case file.
4. Actual conduct: the animals being slaughtered and sold immediately after the farm was taken over.

From this evidence the Chamber concluded that the defendants acted from the very beginning with the intent to defraud the intervening party, with a shared resolve to commit the offence and unity of action, according to a set plan, and carried out the acts of execution together at every stage. It found it contrary to law that an acquittal was given without considering that the defendants, who obtained an unjust benefit through deceptive conduct by disposing of the animals and the movable property on the farm after showing a EUR 3,000,000 guarantee letter of a non-existent bank, committed the offence of qualified fraud regulated in Article 158/1-f of Turkish Penal Code No. 5237.

The grounds of appeal of the intervening party's counsel were found well founded and the judgments were quashed unanimously, contrary to the prosecutor's opinion.

🏦 Which Sub-Paragraph? The Difference Between 158/1-f and 158/1-d

Two separate offence types appear in the heading of the case. One is sub-paragraph (d), concerning the use of public institutions and organisations, or legal entities such as foundations and associations, as a tool; the other is sub-paragraph (f), concerning the use of information systems, banks or credit institutions as a tool. According to the allegation, sub-paragraph (d) rests on the use of registry gazette copies, registry office documents and chamber documents of struck-off companies, while sub-paragraph (f) rests on the guarantee letter.

In the Chamber's reasons for quashing, however, the offence is classified solely under Article 158/1-f of the TCK. The decisive element in the reasoning is that, in the intervening party's eyes, there was a bank guarantee proving the investors' ability to pay. Trust in the bank was used to make the defendants' promise credible. The decision also did not regard the fact that the bank issuing the document was not real as an obstacle under this sub-paragraph.

This distinction matters for the penalty. Under the last sentence of Article 158/1 of the TCK, in the cases listed in sub-paragraphs (e), (f), (j), (k) and (l), the lower limit of the prison sentence cannot be less than four years and the judicial fine cannot be less than twice the benefit obtained from the offence. Sub-paragraph (d) is not within the scope of this aggravated lower limit.

The emphasis on the act having been committed by several people according to a plan fits the rule of joint perpetration in Article 37/1 of the TCK: each person who jointly carries out the act described in the statutory definition of the offence is liable as a perpetrator.

🤝 A Civil Dispute Despite a Protocol and a Promissory Note?

In cases based on investment promises, a frequently debated question is whether a dispute is a matter of criminal law or private law when a contract and a promissory note exist. In this case too, there is a protocol between the intervening party and the defendants, in which one defendant is the debtor and the other the guarantor, and a promissory note of TRY 330,000 was given to the intervening party. At first glance this picture may look like an unpaid sale price.

The Chamber did not regard the existence of the protocol and the note as sufficient for acquittal. In the decision these documents are treated as part of the deception: it was accepted that the defendants, who in reality had neither the means nor the intention to pay, reached the farm through the protocol and the note when the intervening party would not agree to a formal sale. The conclusion that the intent existed from the start, and not afterwards, was drawn from the animals being slaughtered and sold as soon as the farm was taken over, and from the fact that the guarantee letter shown belonged to a non-existent bank.

The decisions on our site on the distinction from a civil dispute in a land investment promiseTR and on the simple lie argument in an investment promiseTR also discuss the same borderline through different events. What stands out in this decision is the use, alongside the contract, of a false bank guarantee and of documents belonging to inactive companies.

🗂️ Appeal Under the Old Procedure: Article 8 of Law No. 5320

The concluding part of the decision states that the quashing was made under Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 (CMUK), which is to be applied under Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. According to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, for decisions given before the date on which the regional courts of appeal started work, Articles 305 to 326 of the CMUK apply until the decisions become final, and the case files for these decisions cannot be sent to the regional courts of appeal.

The first-instance judgment bears Decision No. 2016/26, and the case came directly before the Court of Cassation without going to the appeal stage. The docket number at the Chamber belongs to the year 2021, and the decision to 07.05.2026. The text of the decision contains no assessment of the effect of this period on the dispute.

A note on current legislation should be added: with Law No. 7589 dated 16.07.2026, a fourth paragraph was added to Article 158 of the TCK. This provision provides for a reduction of the penalty by half where participation in fraud offences is limited to giving another person payment instruments such as bank or credit cards, or information or tools that enable the use of an account held at a bank, intermediary institution, payment service provider or crypto asset service provider. In the decision examined, the defendants met the intervening party in person and presented the documents themselves; the decision contains no assessment of this provision.

💬 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 is in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.