Late Objection in a Profit-Share Investment Case: Court of Cassation

A five per cent monthly profit share is paid for a year, albeit irregularly; then the payments stop and the investors are told of a new condition: either a new person must be brought in every four months or additional money must be deposited. Following a complaint, the prosecutor's office treats the matter as a civil dispute and decides that there are no grounds for prosecution. An objection filed about five months after notification of the decision is rejected on the merits. The Ministry of Justice argues that the investigation was incomplete and applies for an appeal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma); the Court of Cassation, without entering into the incomplete investigation debate, settles the case on a question of time limits.

In its decision of 20.10.2025, Docket No. (E.) 2025/1333, Decision No. (K.) 2025/13319, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that the objection was not filed in time, that the authority should have rejected the objection as out of time rather than on the merits, but that this decision was nevertheless correct in its result, and unanimously rejected the request for an appeal in the interest of the law.

📅 The Timeline of the Case

The dates determine the outcome in this decision, so the sequence set out in its text comes first:

More than five months passed between notification and the objection.

💄 The Five Per Cent Profit Share and the "Bring Someone" Condition

According to the complaint as recounted in the text of the decision, the complainants entered an investment arrangement with a cosmetics company whose name is withheld in the source, and deposited TL 10,000.00 and TL 40,000.00 respectively. For the first year they received a 5% monthly profit share irregularly, but from February onwards they could not get their money back. When they spoke to the company, they were told: "Every four months you will bring us someone, otherwise you cannot get your money, or you will deposit additional money and continue the investment."

Noteworthy aspects of this account:

1. A fixed and high monthly return was promised through an activity such as cosmetics, which has a weak link to an investment product.
2. The profit shares paid in the first period strengthened the investor's trust.
3. The continuation of payments was tied to bringing in new participants or depositing additional money.

These elements are features frequently seen in complaints about schemes where earlier participants are paid with the money of new participants. However, the Court of Cassation decision contains no assessment of whether the facts constitute fraud. For the question of whether a separate offence arises for each victim in a scheme of the Ponzi (pyramid) type, see the ruling on each victim being separate in a Ponzi schemeTR on this site.

📝 The Criticism of the Ministry and the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office

The request for an appeal in the interest of the law contains a strong criticism concerning the merits of the case. According to the request, under Article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the public prosecutor is obliged to investigate the truth of the matter as soon as he learns of a situation giving the impression that an offence has been committed. In this case, however:

According to the request, since there was no investigation in accordance with the law, the authority examining the objection rejected the objection when it could have accepted it so that the prosecutor's office would conduct an investigation. For this reason the Ministry requested that the decision of the criminal judgeship of peace be quashed in the interest of the law.

For the Court of Cassation's approach to the "civil dispute" reasoning in similar complaints, the ruling on paying profits and then evoking pityTR on this site offers a point of comparison.

⏳ The Chamber's Reasoning: The Time Limit Comes Before Everything

The Chamber began its assessment by setting out Article 173 of the CMK as in force on the date of the decision. Accordingly, a person harmed by the offence may object, within fifteen days from the date on which the decision of no grounds for prosecution was notified to them, to the criminal judgeship of peace at the place where the assize court within the jurisdiction of the public prosecutor who gave the decision is located. The petition of objection states the events and evidence that may require a public prosecution to be brought; the judgeship may, if necessary, request that the investigation be extended, rejects the request with reasons if there is no sufficient cause, and if it finds the request well founded, the prosecutor prepares an indictment.

In the concrete case the Chamber made the following finding: the decision of no grounds for prosecution was duly notified to the complainant on 30.05.2023, and the objection was filed by a petition dated 01.11.2023. The right of objection was not exercised within the statutory period. The authority, which should have rejected the objection as out of time, instead examined the merits and rejected it. The Chamber found this decision correct in its result and unanimously rejected the request for an appeal in the interest of the law.

Thus the Ministry's criticisms of incomplete investigation were not discussed in the Chamber's reasoning. The time-limit bar came before these questions on the merits.

🧭 The Concept of "Correct in Its Result"

The instructive side of the decision from the point of view of procedural law is that decisions whose conclusion is lawful, even if their reasoning is flawed, are not quashed by way of an appeal in the interest of the law. The criminal judgeship of peace examined the merits and rejected the objection; the correct course would have been to reject the objection as out of time. In both cases the decision of no grounds for prosecution stands.

Under Article 309 of the CMK, an appeal in the interest of the law is a route set in motion at the request of the Ministry of Justice for unlawfulness in decisions or judgments that became final without going through appeal or cassation review; if the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation finds the grounds put forward well founded, it quashes the decision. In this case the ground put forward was incomplete investigation; since an objection filed late cannot be examined on the merits, it was not regarded as capable of changing the result.

In summary, the conclusions the decision reveals are as follows:

📌 Legislation Note: Fifteen Days and Two Weeks

The Chamber relied on the fifteen-day period, referring to Article 173 of the CMK as "in force on the date of the decision". In the current text on mevzuat.gov.tr, however, the objection period in Article 173/1 of the CMK is set as "two weeks". Under the fifth paragraph this article does not apply where the public prosecutor has exercised discretion not to bring a public prosecution, and under the sixth paragraph, if the objection is rejected, Article 172/2 of the CMK applies for a public prosecution to be brought for the same act.

Under Article 172/2 of the CMK, after a decision of no grounds for prosecution, a public prosecution cannot be brought for the same act unless new evidence creating sufficient suspicion is obtained and a decision to that effect is given by the criminal judgeship of peace. For decisions that have become final, the law provides a separate route that depends on the condition of new evidence.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

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