Forex Site Blocked After Removing Turkish: Council of State Ruling

An overseas forex website is blocked years earlier because of its Turkish-language option, and the block is lifted once the criminal investigation ends by statute of limitations. The site then reopens in English only; yet the country list in its account-opening form still includes Türkiye, and it offers 1:1000 leverage. The Capital Markets Board (SPK) has the site blocked again, and the company goes to the administrative courts, arguing: "We have no activity aimed at Turkish investors; Turkish is not spoken only in Türkiye."

In its decision of 21 April 2025, Docket No. (E.) 2023/2477, Decision No. (K.) 2025/1649, the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) unanimously upheld the lower court rulings that found lawful the access ban imposed on an overseas leveraged trading site that had resumed operating under the same or a similar name, even though its Turkish option had been removed.

🕰️ The site's access-ban history

The origin of the dispute lies in an earlier decision of the Capital Markets Board. According to the First Instance Court ruling, the Board had considered that the claimant company's website was engaged in unauthorised capital markets activity by having leveraged trades carried out online from abroad, without permission, for investors resident in Türkiye. It had therefore decided to file a criminal complaint against the site's content providers and to apply for access to the site to be blocked.

Following this, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office issued a decision of non-prosecution on 19 September 2012. A high criminal court set this decision aside and a new investigation was opened. This time, however, a decision of non-prosecution was issued again on the ground that the limitation period for prosecution had expired.

The claimant company then asked for the access ban to be lifted. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office notified the non-prosecution decision to the BTK, requested that the necessary steps be taken, and the access ban was lifted.

🔍 What Did the Review Dated 7 October 2021 Show?

After the ban was lifted, an authorised intermediary institution notified the Board on 6 October 2021 with a list of the names of certain websites and asked for an assessment under the legislation. The claimant company's site was reviewed the next day, on 7 October 2021. The findings recorded in the decision are as follows:

On the basis of these findings, it was accepted that investors were being given the opportunity to trade with leverage. A separate Board decision provided for blocking access also to "websites that had previously been blocked by our Board because of their Turkish-language option and that, although the Turkish option has been removed, have been found to have resumed operating under the same or similar names". Within the framework of this decision, it was considered appropriate to impose an access ban on the claimant's site as well.

The act under challenge is the letter written to the BTK by the Board's Intermediary Activities Department. The letter stated that some websites for which a block had been requested earlier had started operating again under the addresses and IP numbers given in detail, and asked that the necessary steps be taken to block access under Article 99, fourth paragraph, of Capital Markets Law No. 6362. The claimant sought the annulment of the part of this letter concerning its own site.

🗣️ The Company's Objections

At the appeal stage, the claimant company relied on the following arguments:

1. Connection to the site: It argued that the websites in question had no connection with it, and that its requests for this to be established were not taken into account.
2. Lack of evidence: It argued that the decision relied on the administration's abstract defences and was given without any concrete evidence.
3. Unreasoned appeal decision: It argued that the Regional Administrative Court rejected the appeal without giving any reasons and did not properly examine the grounds of appeal.
4. No activity aimed at Türkiye: It argued that it does not serve persons and institutions resident in Türkiye, that it therefore has no obligation to obtain permission from the Board, and that the Board had not proved otherwise.
5. Language and residence argument: It argued that Turkish is not a language used only in Türkiye, that the site offers many language options, that nationals of other countries also live in Türkiye on residence permits, and that the access ban rests entirely on subjective assessments.

The defendant administration, for its part, stated that there was no unlawfulness in the act or in the Regional Administrative Court's decision and asked for the appeal to be rejected.

🏛️ The Administrative Court, the Appeal and the Council of State

The Administrative Court relied on Article 9 of the Communiqué on the Principles Regarding Investment Services and Activities and Ancillary Services (No. III-37.1). In the court's view, this provision gives the Board the authority to set additional criteria for determining that an activity is aimed at persons resident in Türkiye. The court stressed that a Board decision taken on the basis of this authority also covers sites that remove the Turkish option and resume operating under the same or a similar name; it concluded that the act under challenge was not unlawful and dismissed the case.

The Regional Administrative Court stated that the Administrative Court's decision was in accordance with procedure and the law and that the arguments put forward were not of a kind that would lead to its reversal, and it rejected the appeal under Article 45, paragraph 3, of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577.

The 13th Chamber of the Council of State recalled that regional administrative court decisions can be reversed only where one of the grounds listed in Article 49 of Law No. 2577 exists; it stated that the decision under review was in accordance with procedure and the law and that the grounds of appeal were not of a kind that would require reversal. As a result of the decision:

🧩 How Was "Activity Aimed at Türkiye" Determined?

Because the Council of State gave no separate reasoning, the criteria follow from the Administrative Court findings that it upheld.

Removing the language option was not treated as sufficient on its own. The company's main defence was that the site was no longer in Turkish and that Turkish is spoken in other countries too. The court, however, described the case as a site previously blocked because of its Turkish option resuming operations under the same or a similar name, and found the Board's special decision on such sites applicable.

Concrete traces in the account-opening process mattered. The presence of Türkiye in the country-of-residence list, the request for identity and contact details, the demo and real account tabs and the 1:1000 leverage information were assessed together, and it was accepted that investors were being given the opportunity to trade with leverage.

Setting the criteria was left to the Board. The court accepted that the Board may lay down additional criteria determining whether an activity is aimed at persons resident in Türkiye, and assessed the act under challenge within the framework of that regulation.

The administrative sanction side of overseas forex activity was covered earlier on our site in the article on the SPK fine for directing people to an overseas forex company, and the criminal side in the article on helping unauthorised forex activity by collecting moneyTR.

📜 Access-Ban Provisions in the Capital Markets Law

The letter under challenge relies on Article 99, fourth paragraph, of Law No. 6362. The third paragraph of the article was amended by Law No. 7518 of 26 June 2024, and the same law added Article 99/A on crypto assets. The current text of the article is as follows:

The letter at issue in the case was sent to the BTK in 2021; under the current text, decisions are sent to the Access Providers Association. Article 99/A on crypto asset service providers was not applied in this case; however, it offers a point of comparison as an area where the "Turkish website" criterion is expressly stated in the text of the law. For leveraged transactions, by contrast, the criteria are set by the Communiqué and Board decisions, as recounted in the decision.

🙋 Questions and Answers

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