FAST Transfers: Why an Account Injunction Was Lifted (2025/808)
Saturday and Sunday: two days when bank branches are closed. According to the claim of a public bank, two people who had opened accounts at one of its branches transferred TRY 10,432,000.00 of the bank's funds held at the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye to accounts at other banks between 12 and 14 February 2022, through the FAST system and a total of 5,217 transactions. Each transaction was limited to TRY 2,000.00, the FAST limit at the time. The money was spread to dozens of accounts within a short time and from there sent on to other accounts or withdrawn in cash. While the criminal prosecution was under way, the bank filed a compensation claim against the people who received the money and asked for an interim injunction on all their bank accounts. The question to be answered is this: in a lawsuit over a monetary claim, can the deposits in the defendants' accounts be frozen by an interim injunction?
By its decision of 15.05.2025, Docket No. (E.) 2025/787, Decision No. (K.) 2025/808, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal dismissed on the merits the claimant bank's appeal against the interim orders of 18.12.2024 and 23.01.2025 of the Istanbul Anadolu 7th Commercial Court of First Instance, which had lifted the interim injunction in respect of three defendants, under Articles 353/1-b.1 and 394/5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). The decision was given unanimously and is final.
💸 The weekend as the bank described it
The claimant is a public bank operating nationwide, whose entire capital belongs to the Ministry of Treasury and Finance. According to the allegations set out in the statement of claim, two defendants who had opened accounts at the bank's Adapazarı Branch transferred TRY 10,432,000.00 from the bank's Central Bank reserves to accounts at different banks between 12.02.2022 and 14.02.2022 using the FAST (Instant and Continuous Transfer of Funds) system. The bank argued that the transactions were deliberately spread over the weekend to prevent intervention and to stop the judicial machinery from working.
The decision lists the accounts that received the money one by one. A few examples show the scale of the distribution:
- A total of TRY 2,134,000.00 in 1,065 transactions to accounts at 7 different banks in one person's name,
- A total of TRY 2,472,000.00 in 1,236 transactions to accounts at 5 different banks in one person's name,
- A total of TRY 2,104,000.00 in 1,052 transactions to accounts at 11 different banks in one person's name,
- A total of TRY 638,000.00 in 319 transactions to accounts at 4 different banks in the name of a joint-stock company operating in precious metals,
- Small amounts, such as TRY 10,000.00 in 5 transactions, to some accounts at the end of the list.
The bank argued that the two defendants who made the first transfers were liable for the entire loss, and that the other defendants, who moved the money from their accounts to other accounts or withdrew it in cash, were jointly and severally liable because they took part in the wrongful act. It argued that none of the people whose accounts received money at the weekend, in unusual amounts and at unusual frequency, applied to the bank for a refund, and that the prosecutor's report, the statement of the case sent for prosecution (fezleke), the MASAK records and the call-detail (HTS) records showed knowing participation.
The criminal complaint was filed on 14.02.2022, and prosecution began with an indictment in file Docket No. 2023/531 of the Istanbul Anadolu 20th Criminal Court of First Instance. In the civil case, reserving its rights to claim more, the bank asked for now for TRY 100,000.00 to be collected jointly and severally with statutory interest from 12.02.2022, and in addition asked for an interim injunction and a precautionary attachment without security on all bank accounts.
🏛️ The two-stage approach of the court of first instance
The Istanbul Anadolu 7th Commercial Court of First Instance split the request in two in its interim order of 12.01.2024:
- Interim injunction: Taking into account the subject of the lawsuit and the pending criminal proceedings, the court accepted that collecting the claim could become very difficult if no injunction were ordered, and placed an interim injunction on the defendants' bank deposits against security, limited to the amounts in the statement of claim.
- Precautionary attachment: The court stated that Article 257 and following of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) require a claim that is due and highly probable, and that a precautionary attachment cannot be granted for a claim that is not liquid. It accepted that attachment could be considered for any remaining amount if there is no money, or only part of it, in the accounts, but that no decision could be made on this for now because it was not known how much of the claim would remain uncovered as a result of the injunction.
Objections were made to this decision. As understood from the decision text, the interim order of 15.04.2024 rejecting the objections in respect of some defendants was set aside by the same Chamber's decision of 12.06.2024, Docket No. 2024/958, Decision No. 1006, and the objection of those defendants was accepted. By its interim orders of 18.12.2024 and 23.01.2025, the court of first instance also lifted the injunction for three more defendants, stating that they were in the same position. The subject of the appeal is these last two interim orders.
🗣️ The defendants' objections
The objections of the defendants whose injunctions were lifted are summarised in the decision text. They are noteworthy because they show how the people who received the money viewed the events:
- The representative of a company trading in scrap gold: He argued that people wishing to buy scrap gold had approached him, had sent the payment by FAST, that he had issued the invoice and was waiting to deliver, and that although he could have withdrawn the money until the hour when a block was placed on the accounts, he did not. He also argued that the payment had arrived in the company's account, that he had no personal liability, and that the lawsuit could not be brought as a partial claim.
- The owner of a software company: He stated that he believed the total of TRY 76,000.00 that reached his account was payment for work he had done, that he had no obligation to know the person who sent the money, and that the elements of fault, loss and causal link were not met.
- Another defendant: He said there was no circumstance requiring an injunction on his accounts and asked for it to be lifted.
In its appeal petition, the bank asked for the injunction to continue, relying on ATM camera footage, call-detail (HTS) records and the allegation that the act was committed in an organised way, and argued that the defendants had to be prevented from transferring their assets to third parties.
⚖️ The Chamber's reasoning: injunction versus attachment
The Chamber characterised the case as a compensation claim based on the allegation that the bank's money held at the Central Bank was withdrawn through the defendants' wrongful acts. It then set out Articles 389/1, 390/3 and 391/1 of the HMK and, referring to its own earlier decision, listed the following principles:
- An interim injunction can be ordered only in respect of the thing that is the subject of the lawsuit; the thing subject to the injunction is essentially the subject of the main case.
- In a lawsuit whose subject is a monetary claim, a precautionary attachment may be ordered on request if the conditions in Article 257 and following of the İİK are met.
- An interim injunction cannot be ordered over assets that are not the subject of the lawsuit.
- In a lawsuit over a monetary claim, an injunction cannot be placed on assets.
In the case at hand, the bank's request is for the collection of a claim arising from the material loss it suffered. The defendants' bank accounts, however, are not the subject of the lawsuit. For this reason, the Chamber held that it was not correct for the court of first instance to place an injunction on all of the defendants' accounts and that the interim orders accepting the objections were in accordance with procedure and the law. The appeal was dismissed on the merits, and the appeal costs were left with the bank.
📚 Provisions applied in the decision
- HMK Art. 389/1: Where there is concern that, because of a change in the existing situation, obtaining the right would become considerably more difficult or impossible, or that delay would cause inconvenience or serious loss, an interim injunction may be ordered in respect of the subject of the dispute.
- HMK Art. 390/3: The person requesting an injunction must state clearly the reason relied on and the type of injunction, and must prove approximately that they are justified on the merits of the case.
- HMK Art. 394/5: A decision on an objection can be appealed; the appeal is examined as a priority and decided finally.
- HMK Art. 362/1-f: Decisions of the regional court of appeal on provisional legal protection cannot be appealed on points of law.
- İİK Art. 257/1: The creditor of a monetary debt that is due and not secured by a pledge may have the debtor's movable and immovable property, receivables and other rights, held by the debtor or a third party, attached as a precaution.
The essence of the distinction lies in the words "in respect of the subject of the dispute" in Article 389. In a lawsuit over the title to a property, an injunction can be placed on that property, and in a lawsuit over the delivery of a specific item, on that item. In monetary claims such as compensation, however, any money in the defendant's account is not the subject of the lawsuit but part of the general assets from which the claim will be collected. The statutory way of securing those assets is a precautionary attachment.
🧭 Consequences for practice
The decision draws a procedurally decisive framework for creditors pursuing money distributed through fraud or a system weakness. The Chamber looked not at the seriousness of the allegations, the continuing criminal prosecution or the fact that the claimant is a public bank, but at the type of provisional legal protection requested.
The decision does not examine whether the conditions for a precautionary attachment were met in this case; the only matter under appeal is the lifting of the injunction. The court of first instance, for its part, had earlier not yet decided on a precautionary attachment, on the grounds that the claim was not liquid and that the amount that would remain uncovered after the injunction was not known. As a result, no provisional measure protecting the assets remains in respect of these defendants.
Blocks placed on accounts have been covered on our site before from different angles. In the article on a forgery block after a MASAK suspensionTR, the relationship between a forgery block continuing after a MASAK suspension and an injunction was discussed. In the decision that a blocked share is not a pledgeTR, the matter of a precautionary attachment over blocked shares in a margin share debt was addressed. The present decision differs from them in that it draws the line between the two institutions directly.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Could the money that reached the accounts not be treated as the subject of the lawsuit?
Was the continuing criminal prosecution not enough for an injunction?
Does lifting the injunction decide the outcome of the case?
Is there an appeal on points of law against this decision?
For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and similar decisions are in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.
This article is for general information; its content is compiled from the decision of the 14th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal published in the Court of Cassation decision search system. The account of the events is based on the parties' allegations as set out in the decision text and on the summary of the first-instance interim orders; the decision text contains no ruling on the merits of these allegations. The outcome of the criminal prosecution is also not in the decision text. Different results may be reached in cases where the type of protection requested and the nature of the claim differ. Savun Law & Consultancy cannot be held responsible for applications, lawsuits and defences made on the basis of this article.
This page is an English adaptation of our Turkish article FAST Zararında Hesaplara Tedbir – İst. BAM 14. HD 2025/808.
More from Turkish Court Decisions
- Chargeback Attachment Rejected: İzmir Appeal Court Ruling 2026/1256
- Foreign Claimant's Security in Traffic Accident Case, Türkiye
- Late Objection in a Profit-Share Investment Case: Court of Cassation
- Trading Ban Annulled: Social Media Stock Group, Council of State
- Fake Bank Guarantee Investment Fraud: Court of Cassation 2026/5239
- Unrecorded Fund Account: Court of Cassation Ruling 2026/679