Asset Freeze at a Foreign State's Request: Council of State Ruling

The assets in Türkiye of a jewellery and money transfer company are frozen by a Presidential Decision published in the Official Gazette, with no lawsuit filed and no investigation under way. Behind the decision are a request sent by the United States through a diplomatic note, a research report prepared by the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) on that request, and an assessment by a commission. The company's sole shareholder claimed that the measure violated the right to property and that the statutory provision behind it was unconstitutional, and brought the case directly before the Council of State (Danıştay).

In its decision of 29 May 2025 (Docket No. E.2021/7698, Decision No. K.2025/2800), the 10th Chamber of the Council of State did not find the claim of unconstitutionality serious, saw no unlawfulness in the part of the Presidential Decision on the freezing of assets that concerned the claimant, and unanimously dismissed the case. An appeal to the Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State was left open against the decision.

🌐 How the request came and what the report found

The US Embassy in Ankara asked, through notes, for the freezing of the assets of certain persons and entities. MASAK then prepared a research report and submitted it to the Commission for the Evaluation of Asset Freezing. According to the summary of the report quoted in the decision:

1. In a statement of 18 November 2019, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of the Treasury placed a money transfer company on its sanctions list on the ground that it supported the terrorist organisation ISIS (DEAŞ).
2. In its inquiry, MASAK reached a jewellery company in Türkiye whose address in the tax records was the same as that of the listed company; the claimant was found to be the sole shareholder, holding one hundred per cent of its shares.
3. One vehicle was registered in the company's name and no real estate record was found; on the other hand, it was established that between 2017 and 2019 the company had made large foreign currency and Turkish lira transfers.
4. Transfer analyses showed that the company operated as an agent of an electronic money institution, and that this institution unilaterally ended the agency relationship on 21 November 2019.
5. It was seen that in 2018 a total of 17,168 TL was sent from the company's account, in two transactions, to the account of a person sanctioned by the US on allegations of financial support to another organisation.

Taking into account the obligations arising from UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and the principle of reciprocity, the Commission proposed freezing, without seeing a need to ask the US for a guarantee. The company's assets in Türkiye were then frozen by Presidential Decision No. 4713 of 28 October 2021, published in Official Gazette No. 31643 of 29 October 2021.

🗂️ The claimant's objections and the administration's defence

The claimant argued that asset freezing should be done by law, that a measure established by a Presidential decision violated the right to property, and that there was no case filed or investigation under way against him. He also stated that Article 6 of Law No. 6415 was contrary to Article 35 of the Constitution, which regulates the right to property, and asked for a referral to the Constitutional Court by way of objection.

The defendant administrations argued that the request was made by the US within the fight against the financing of a terrorist organisation, that the MASAK research had reached information, still in need of confirmation, that the company gave financial support to the organisation, and that the measure taken after the Commission's assessment was in accordance with procedure and law. The Rapporteur Judge of the Council of State and the Council of State Public Prosecutor also gave opinions in favour of dismissing the case.

🏛️ Why the claim of unconstitutionality was not found serious

The Chamber first examined the claimant's request for referral to the Constitutional Court by way of objection. Article 6 of Law No. 6415 had earlier been the subject of an annulment action, and in its decision of 10 October 2013 (Docket No. E.2013/45, Decision No. K.2013/113) the Constitutional Court had found the rule not contrary to the Constitution. The Council of State quoted the following assessments from that decision:

For this reason the Chamber concluded that the claim of unconstitutionality had no legal basis or reasoning, and did not find the request for referral by way of objection serious.

🔍 The Council of State's review of procedure

The centre of the decision is whether the foreign state's request is sufficient on its own. From the provisions of the Law and its Implementing Regulation, the Chamber concluded that a reasoned request from a foreign state is not considered sufficient alone for freezing. Accordingly, information must be gathered from other institutions on the request, the results of the financial investigation must be put into a report, the Commission must assess the principle of reciprocity and whether a guarantee is needed, and the final decision must be given by the President.

In the case itself, the Chamber found that the MASAK report was prepared without relying only on the foreign state's request. The report examined identity, address, taxpayer status, employment records, partnership and management information, assets, credit information, money transfers and connection analyses; it relied on concrete data and on reasonable links and assessments. The Commission also met with the procedure and the members set out in Presidential Decree No. 1, Article 9 of Law No. 6415 and the Regulation.

Within this framework, the Chamber accepted that the reasons and grounds for the company's role as an intermediary in the financing of terrorism were set out and that the decision was made in line with the Law at the stages of review, investigation, assessment and decision, and dismissed the case.

📘 The foreign-state request process under Law No. 6415

According to their current texts on mevzuat.gov.tr, the provisions applied in the decision set out the following framework:

• Article 6/1: A request of a foreign state's government for the freezing of assets is assessed by the Evaluation Commission and decided by the President. The principle of reciprocity is observed in the assessment; for a decision to be made, the request must be sent together with its grounds.
• Article 6/3: A guarantee may be requested from the state concerned for the request to be carried out. In the case itself, the Commission did not see this as necessary.
• Article 6/5: If the requesting state does not start an investigation within one year from the date the freezing decision is published in the Official Gazette, the decision may be lifted.
• Article 11: Freezing and lifting decisions are published in the Official Gazette and are deemed served on the person concerned on the date of publication; the decision states against whom it is made, the reasons, the scope, the duration, and the legal remedies available and their time limits.

Freezing of assets is an administrative measure different from seizure in criminal procedure or the transaction suspension measure MASAK applies to suspicious transactions. This site has earlier covered measures on bank accounts in the articles seven business days in a MASAK block and MASAK block and seizure; this decision, by contrast, focuses on the judicial review of a freeze applied directly to assets by a Presidential Decision.

📌 The limits of the decision

Several points should be underlined when assessing the decision:

❓ Questions readers may ask

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.