Foreign Investor Title Deed Trap: Court of Cassation 2026/2719

A person living abroad is told by an acquaintance: "There is a business premises for sale, it would be a good investment." The investor comes from Kazakhstan, tours the property, gives a notarised power of attorney so that the formalities can be carried out, and sends a total of 920,000 US dollars through his father. But the title deed is registered not in the name of the investor who sent the money but in the name of one of the people handling the transaction; the investor is sent a forged title deed made to look as if it were issued in his own name. When the truth comes out, a new price and four separate units are demanded for transferring the title. Is the promise-to-sell contract signed under these conditions valid, and can the extra money paid be recovered?

In its decision dated 04.05.2026, Docket No. E.2026/1271, Decision No. K.2026/2719, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) unanimously upheld the judgment ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the extra TL 947,228 that had been paid, and cancelling the promise-to-sell contract made under conditions of duress and excessive advantage-taking.

🧳 From an investment offer to a forged title deed

According to the statement of claim as set out in the decision, the claimant was introduced, through a person he met in a business relationship, to a defendant who ran a car dealership in Istanbul. In early October 2011 it was learned that a property housing a club business was for sale, and the claimant was told this "could be a good investment". The claimant then came from Kazakhstan, saw the place with an estate agent, and gave a notarised power of attorney dated 26.10.2011 so that they could carry out the formalities for buying the property.

The statement of claim describes the rest of the events as follows:

The claimant argued that the real sale price of the property was TL 1,675,000, that he had nevertheless had to pay TL 2,622,228 in total, and that TL 947,228 had been taken unjustly; that one of the defendants had abused his duty as an agent, and that the other, the first defendant's spouse, had been unjustly enriched.

🔗 Two connected lawsuits

The dispute began as two separate lawsuits, which were later joined:

The defendants argued that the allegations were unfounded, that there was a commercial relationship between the parties, that the claimant engaged in usury, and that the promise-to-sell contract met all formal requirements.

⏳ The stages of proceedings lasting fourteen years

The sequence, including the two reversals, is as follows:

One defendant's appeal, however, ran into a separate procedural problem. The notice issued for the unpaid appeal fees and expenses to be deposited within a final one-week period was served on 03.02.2025, but no payment was made within that time. The court decided by a supplementary decision that the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

⚖️ The Court of Cassation's assessment and the result

The appealing defendant's lawyer argued that no explanation was given for departing from the earlier decision, that the people who made the payments were not the claimant, that there was a contradiction between the two judgments, that showing the four separate units at a low price before the notary was a normal practice because of fees and taxes, that the criminal file contained no threatening act, and that the other defendant had been acquitted of the offence of threat.

The chamber did not find these objections well founded. The main findings in the decision are these:

On these grounds, both the judgment in the main and joined cases and the supplementary decision deeming the appeal withdrawn were upheld. Because the case was brought during the period of Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086 (HUMK), the affirmation was based on Article 439 of the HUMK, and the route of a request for rectification of the decision was left open.

🧩 Duress and excessive advantage-taking together

The cancellation in the joined case rests on the finding that two separate defects of consent occurred together in the same event. The court tied its decision to Articles 39/1 and 28/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

Excessive advantage-taking (TBK Art. 28): Where there is an obvious disproportion between the mutual performances in a contract, and this disproportion was brought about by exploiting the injured party's distress, thoughtlessness or inexperience, the injured party may declare that they are not bound by the contract and request the return of their performance or the removal of the disproportion. In this case, the fact that four separate units worth TL 340,000 were made the subject of a promise to sell for TL 24,000 was assessed as an obvious disproportion between the performances.

Duress and removal of the defect of consent (TBK Art. 39): A party who made a contract as a result of duress is deemed to have approved the contract if, within one year from the moment the effect of the duress ended, they do not declare that they are not bound by the contract or do not reclaim what they gave. The court accepted that the claimant was told the title deed would be given only if this contract was signed, and that the claimant was in a difficult position in order to obtain the property he had paid for.

The defence that "showing a low price before the notary is normal" did not change the outcome when considered together with the facts established in the final criminal judgment. For the question of refunding money sent to an intermediary in a similar investment-promise relationship, see also our article on money sent to an estate agent on an investment promiseTR.

📜 The effect of a criminal conviction on the civil case

One of the most instructive aspects of the decision is the relationship between the civil case and the criminal case. In the first reversal ruling of 2016, it was stated that, under Article 74 of the Code of Obligations, although the civil judge is not bound by the criminal judge's acquittal, the civil judge is bound by the material facts established in the criminal proceedings, and it was requested that the outcome of the criminal case be awaited.

Under TBK Art. 74, the judge is not bound by the criminal judge's acquittal or by the criminal judge's assessment of fault and loss; however, the material facts regarded as established in a final conviction are taken into account in civil proceedings.

This approach was decisive in this case as well:

Even though the payments were in fact made by the claimant's father and brother, the Court of Cassation accepted that the payments were made on behalf of the claimant and rejected the objection on this point.

❓ Frequently asked questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and our other case assessments are in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.