Foreign Investor's Money Claim in Turkey: Oath Evidence Ruling

A foreigner who came on holiday, met someone at a hotel and sent EUR 220,000 within two months, relying on a promotional report shown to them, may face an unexpected procedural obstacle when suing in the Turkish courts to get the money back. The bank transfers carry no description, the other side has not even answered the lawsuit, and a witness cannot be heard because of the amount. The last conclusive means of proof left, the oath, was not raised at first instance. If this omission is raised for the first time at the cassation stage, can it change the outcome?

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), in its decision of 4 March 2026, Docket No. (E.) 2025/3979, Decision No. (K.) 2026/1200, answered this question in the negative. The Chamber noted that the failure to remind the plaintiff of the oath was not raised as a ground of appeal, that this matter does not concern public order and therefore cannot be examined by the Regional Court of Appeal on its own motion, and unanimously upheld the decision dismissing the case.

🏨 An investment relationship that began at a hotel

According to the petition, the plaintiff is a German citizen who met the defendant at a hotel in January 2018 and became close to him. The defendant used a promotional report prepared by a third-party valuation company to persuade the plaintiff to invest in a certain location. According to the plaintiff's account, within two months a total of EUR 220,000 was handed to the defendant: EUR 129,500 in 12 instalments and EUR 90,500 from an account.

In the statement reflected in the decision, the defendant left after telling the plaintiff that he would call, send a location and keep him informed; nothing was heard from him afterwards and his phones could not be reached. On the complaint of the plaintiff, who believed he had been defrauded, an investigation file was opened at the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office in 2020. The plaintiff asked the civil court to order the defendant to pay EUR 220,000.

One striking feature of the case is that the defendant never answered the lawsuit. Even so, the decisions of the lower courts make clear that the burden of proof remained on the plaintiff.

⚖️ The lower courts: the presumption and the ban on witnesses

The court of first instance dismissed the case, stating that the burden of proving that money sent by a transfer without a description was sent for investment lay on the plaintiff who made the claim, and that the plaintiff had not proved this with written evidence.

The Regional Court of Appeal reached the same result. In its decision it stated that, under the case law of the Court of Cassation and Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, the transfers are deemed to have been made to pay a debt that had fallen due, that under the rules of proof in Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) a witness cannot be heard because of the amount, and that the plaintiff had not proved his claims, and it rejected the appeal.

Article 555 of the Turkish Code of Obligations defines a transfer order as a legal transaction in which the person giving the order authorises the payer to pay money or another fungible item to the recipient on the giver's own account. The presumption that a transfer without a description is made to pay an existing debt has been shaped by case law. As for the ban on witnesses, Article 200 of the HMK requires legal transactions above the value stated in the law to be proved by a written instrument; proving a payment of EUR 220,000 by witness was therefore not considered possible.

📝 The three objections in the cassation petition

At the cassation stage, the plaintiff's lawyer put forward three connected main arguments for the decision to be reversed:

1. Foreign nationality and the language barrier: The plaintiff is a German citizen, does not know Turkish law or the Turkish language, and did not know how important it would later be, for proof, to write a description on the transfers; the disadvantages of a good-faith foreign investor should be tolerated under the right to a fair trial and the right to be heard.
2. Strict application of the presumption: It was wrong to apply strictly the presumption that a transfer without a description was sent to perform a debt that had fallen due; the defendant should have to prove that such a debt existed between the parties; and money sent for investment where no debt existed should be returned under the rules on unjust enrichment.
3. The oath was not raised: Although the petition relied on the oath as evidence, the case was dismissed without reminding the plaintiff of this evidence and giving the chance to prove the claim.

🔍 Why did the Court of Cassation uphold the decision?

The Chamber characterised the dispute as "the collection of a receivable arising from money alleged to have been given to the defendant for investment not being used as alleged and not being returned". The backbone of the reasoning for upholding the decision consists of the following findings:

On these grounds the cassation objections were rejected and the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal was unanimously upheld under Article 370/1 of the HMK. The plaintiff's objection based on his foreign nationality and the language barrier was not addressed separately; the Chamber did not accept the view that the rules of proof should be relaxed for this reason.

🚧 The limit of appeal review: Article 355 of the Code of Civil Procedure

What sets this decision apart from other transfer disputes on the same subject is that the outcome rests mainly on a point of appeal procedure. Under Article 355 of HMK No. 6100, appeal review is limited to the grounds stated in the appeal petition; the Regional Court of Appeal considers on its own motion only a breach of public order.

In this case the failure to remind the plaintiff of the oath, which could have been an important procedural objection in his favour, did not appear in the appeal petition. According to the Court of Cassation, this omission does not concern public order; the Regional Court of Appeal could therefore not be expected to examine it of its own accord. Raising for the first time at the cassation stage a ground not put forward on appeal did not change the result either, because it does not amount to a breach of an express provision of law.

For a case in which the relationship between a transfer without a description and the oath was discussed on the merits, see the article on the transfer presumption in fraud claimsTR; for an investment dispute in which the transfer description turned the case in the plaintiff's favour, see the article on money sent to a real estate agent with a promise of investmentTR. In the present decision, what mattered was the stage at which the failure to remind the plaintiff of the oath was raised.

🌐 Does being a foreigner change the burden of proof?

The most striking part of the cassation petition is the request that the rules of proof be softened because the plaintiff is a foreigner who does not know Turkish. The plaintiff's lawyer argued that a good-faith foreign investor who did not know the importance of a transfer description should be protected under the right to a fair trial.

The decision of the Court of Cassation does not devote a separate paragraph to this objection, but in the end the presumption and the rules of proof were applied regardless of the plaintiff's nationality. The picture that emerges from the text of the decision is as follows:

• The defendant's failure to answer the lawsuit did not shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
• The fact that the money was sent in 12 instalments and in large amounts was not enough to disprove the presumption.
• The opening of an investigation at the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office did not change the burden of proof in the civil case either; the text of the decision contains no information on the outcome of the investigation.
• Relying on the rules of unjust enrichment did not remove the need to prove the purpose of the transfer.

The decision is an example of how decisive documents, and the content of the petitions filed at the appeal stages during the proceedings, can be in investment relationships that begin with cross-border acquaintances.

❓ Questions readers may ask

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 archive.