Forex Case: Broker-Steered Trades, Ankara Court 2025/1287

In lawsuits brought by investors who lost money on a leveraged trading account, one question often stands out: who made the trading decisions that caused the loss? The investor says he was called constantly and steered, while the brokerage says every order was sent from the investor's own screen. In the case examined by the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, the court of first instance concluded that the trades were made by the investor and dismissed the claim. The transcripts of the voice recordings in the case file, however, showed a different picture.

By its decision of 13.11.2025, Docket No. (E.) 2023/504, Decision No. (K.) 2025/1287, the 21st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal found that the voice recordings showed some of the trades were made by the investor and some at the brokerage's direction. Because the dismissal had been given without separating these trades or examining their effect on the loss, the chamber held that it rested on an incomplete examination and set aside the first instance decision and sent the case back for retrial.

📞 The violations alleged by the investor

According to the petition, the claimant believed he was investing in the forex market and made payments to the defendant brokerage from 2019 onwards, on different dates and in different amounts. He alleged that he had no experience of the market, that he was put under pressure through constant phone calls, and that he was misled with promises of high returns, being told that the trades would be directed by the brokerage and that profit would come from buying and selling alone. The petition also contained the following allegations:

The claimant stated that he lost about USD 312,000 in total and, reserving his rights for the excess, requested for now USD 500 of the deposit he had paid. The lawsuit was filed on 23.12.2020.

🛡️ The brokerage's defence

The defendant brokerage first argued that the claim was time-barred. On the merits, it stated that the framework agreement, containing the minimum matters set by the SPK, had been properly signed, that leveraged trades are high-risk and that it was known the entire amount deposited could be lost. According to the defence, the claimant could monitor his trades online at any time and daily and monthly notifications were sent to him regularly. It was asserted that the allegations on steering, the suitability test, margin and conflict of interest were untrue and that these matters were demonstrated by log records, voice recordings and documents.

🔬 Findings of the expert panel

The expert panel report received by the first instance court, registered on 28.11.2022, addressed the claimant's allegations one by one. The main findings in the report are as follows:

📄 The first instance court's reasons for dismissal

In its decision of 24.01.2023, the first instance court accepted that the brokerage had undertaken by contract to provide leveraged trading and all related services. According to the court, however, the claimant had made the trades himself and the brokerage had no direct influence on them. It was stated that the market information given to the claimant was announced before the calls not to be investment advice; in the last calls the claimant complained that he could not trade but did not mention any trade made without his knowledge. Because the expert examination did not find that a loss had arisen from the brokerage's conduct, the claim was dismissed.

🔄 Why did the regional court of appeal set it aside?

Examining the claimant's appeal, the 21st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal first determined that the court had jurisdiction and that there was no breach of the exclusive jurisdiction rules, and then went into the merits. The chamber's decisive finding is this: from the CD transcripts of the voice recordings in the case file, it is clear that some of the trades in dispute were made by the claimant himself and some were made as a result of steering by the defendant.

According to the chamber, the expert report relied on for the judgment contained no examination in this direction, and the first instance court decided without collecting the parties' evidence on this point and without assessing the objections to the expert report. The first instance finding that “the claimant made the trades himself” was therefore not consistent with the content of the voice recordings in the case file.

The chamber relied on Article 353/1-a-6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), as amended by Law No. 7251. Under this provision, where evidence significant enough to affect the resolution of the dispute has not been collected or assessed, the regional court of appeal decides, without a hearing and by a final ruling, to set the decision aside without examining the merits and to send the case back for retrial. In the decision the appeal was accepted, the first instance decision was set aside and the case was sent to the court that gave the decision.

🧭 What will be examined in the retrial

The chamber also drew the framework for the retrial to be held by the first instance court. The steps of examination listed in the decision are as follows:

1. Taking into account the objections and statements put forward by the parties during the trial and in the appeal petition,
2. Examining the information and documents in the case and, if necessary, the defendant's records,
3. Separating the trades the claimant made himself in the period in question from the trades he was persuaded to make by the defendant's staff,
4. Establishing which trade was made on which date and investigating whether the claimant suffered a loss because of these trades,
5. Determining by a new expert report whether the matters identified in the first expert report caused loss and, if so, in what amounts.

This framework indicates that in leveraged trading disputes the loss should be assessed trade by trade, not account by account. Instead of the loss on the whole account, the trades found to have been made as a result of steering are expected to be identified separately and the result of each calculated. The other matters found by the expert, namely the pre-printed risk disclosure form, the absence of any document showing a test after the new operating licence and the failure to establish whether the conflict of interest was explained, will also be addressed in this scope in terms of their link to the loss.

The outcome of the decision is not a final ruling in the claimant's favour; the chamber did not express a view on the merits and only identified an incomplete examination. For the Court of Cassation's assessment in a different case on proving brokerage steering, see the article Did the brokerage steer the trades?TR, and for another appeal decision on the suitability test, see the article the suitability test in forexTR.

❓ Questions and answers

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