Alanya, Antalya, Gazipaşa and Manavgat on the Mediterranean coast, owing to their large populations and tourism potential, are home to extremely dynamic processes in terms of real property law and transfers of ownership. Rapid construction in the region, strong investment interest and, in particular, the high level of activity in property acquisitions and citizenship applications by foreign nationals can create serious legal risk factors for an increase in cases of forged title deeds, double sales and aggravated fraud.
Irregularities in property sale and promise-to-sell processes, repeated transfers based on simple written protocols, and the obtaining of unlawful benefits through forged title deed documents are governed by multi-layered rules in terms of both criminal law and private law (real property law). So, what criminal remedies should be pursued when one becomes a victim of real estate fraud? How are interim injunction and actions for cancellation and re-registration of title (tapu iptal ve tescil) filed? How is the State’s strict liability for errors in the land register (Turkish Civil Code (TMK) Art. 1007) invoked?
In this comprehensive guide, we examine the elements of real estate fraud, the legal remedies available and the principles of risk management in light of the settled case law of the Grand Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) and its relevant criminal and civil chambers.
1. The Relevant Legislative Framework
Irregularities and fraudulent acts in property sale and promise-to-sell processes are addressed within the framework of the following fundamental legal provisions:
- Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 (TCK) Art. 157: An offender who deceives a person through fraudulent conduct and thereby obtains a benefit for himself or another to the detriment of that person or another is liable to imprisonment of one to five years and a judicial fine of up to five thousand days.
- TCK No. 5237 Art. 158/1-d: Committing fraud by using public institutions and organisations as an instrument is an aggravated form of the offence.
- TCK No. 5237 Art. 158/1-h: Committing the offence in the course of the commercial activities of persons who are merchants or company managers or who act on behalf of a company (such as double sales of independent units by contractors) constitutes aggravated fraud and is punishable by imprisonment of three to ten years.
- TCK No. 5237 Art. 204: Governs the offence of forgery of official documents and its criminal sanctions.
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK) Art. 706 & Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK) Art. 237: The validity of contracts aimed at transferring ownership of immovable property and of promise-to-sell agreements depends on their being executed in official form (at the land registry directorate or before a notary).
- TMK No. 4721 Art. 1009 & Land Registry Law No. 2644 Art. 26: Enable promise-to-sell agreements executed before a notary to be annotated in the land register and thereby take effect as rights in rem against third parties.
- TMK No. 4721 Art. 1007: Provides that the State is directly and strictly liable for all damage arising from the keeping of the land register.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) Art. 389: Governs the granting of interim injunctions to prevent the disputed property from being transferred to third parties.
2. The Criminal Law Dimension: Deceit, Forgery and Aggravated Fraud
A. The Nature of Deceit in Fraud and the Use of Public Institutions as an Instrument
The case law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) clearly accepts that, for the offence of fraud to be committed, the act must go beyond a simple lie. Indeed, in its decision of the Grand Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (29.06.2022, E. 2021/241, K. 2022/506), it was emphasised that merely telling a lie in legal transactions and contracts is not sufficient to constitute fraud, and that the offender’s deceitful conduct must be of such intensity and skill as to eliminate the victim’s ability to verify.
For the aggravated form of using public institutions as an instrument under TCK Art. 158/1-d to apply, it is not enough merely to mention the name of the institution. The printed documents, official seals or physical items such as title deeds of public institutions like the land registry directorate or notaries must have been used as a vehicle for the deceit.
B. Forged Title Deeds and the Use of Photocopied Documents
A fraud method frequently encountered in the property market is to produce a forged title deed for a property to which the offender has no rights and to collect a deposit or the purchase price from the buyer. In the decisions of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (24.01.2023, E. 2021/13377, K. 2023/275) and the 15th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (15.03.2021, E. 2021/1940, K. 2021/2948), it was held that obtaining a benefit by using a forged title deed constitutes both aggravated fraud under Art. 158/1-d of TCK No. 5237 and forgery of an official document under TCK Art. 204.
Even where the document is a colour photocopy and is therefore accepted as lacking the capacity to deceive for the purposes of forgery of an official document, the aggravating element of fraud (TCK Art. 158/1-d) continues to exist because it instilled confidence in the buyer and enabled the money to be collected (Court of Cassation 11th Criminal Chamber, 21.10.2025, E. 2021/30278, K. 2025/13435).
C. Double Sales by Contractors and Commercial Fraud (TCK Art. 158/1-h)
In construction projects or off-plan apartment purchases, selling the same independent unit to more than one buyer through simple written contracts constitutes the offence of “aggravated fraud committed in the course of commercial activity” under TCK Art. 158/1-h. According to Court of Cassation decisions, for this offence to be established:
- The offender must be a merchant, a company manager or a person authorised to represent the company,
- The act must be carried out within the scope of the company’s business of construction and property sales,
- Confidence must have been established and the price collected through deceit, without any intention to transfer from the outset,
- The victims must have been harmed by the same independent unit being sold repeatedly to different persons through informal contracts.
In the case law of the 15th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (25.11.2019, E. 2017/11535, K. 2019/12658) and the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (09.03.2022, E. 2021/12728, K. 2022/3935), it was held that where independent units are transferred to third parties or sold more than once despite payments having been made, the defendants must be punished under TCK Art. 158/1-h.
D. The Motive to Avoid Notarial Procedures and the Risk of High Costs
In practice, the reason parties turn to simple written “preliminary sale protocols” or “informal share transfer” documents instead of a promise-to-sell agreement executed in official form before a notary is usually the motive to avoid notary fees, stamp duty and land registry fees. However, contracts made without complying with the official form are absolutely null and void (invalid) under Art. 237 of TBK No. 6098 and Art. 706 of TMK No. 4721. The buyer loses the right to demand registration of ownership in the land register and can only claim repayment of the money paid under the rules on unjust enrichment; this leaves the door open for bad-faith sellers to make double sales.
3. The Private Law Dimension: Formal Requirements, Good Faith and State Liability
A. Annotation on the Title Deed and Protection Against Third Parties (TMK Art. 1009)
Real estate promise-to-sell agreements duly executed before a notary should be annotated in the land register under Art. 26 of the Land Registry Law No. 2644 and TMK Art. 1009. A promise to sell annotated on the title deed can also be asserted against third parties who subsequently acquire rights over the property, and it entirely eliminates the risk of a double sale.
B. The Principle of Reliance on the Land Register and the Limits of Good Faith (TMK Art. 1023, Art. 3/2)
Under TMK Art. 1023, a third party who acquires ownership in good faith in reliance on an entry in the land register is protected in that acquisition. However, persons who fail to exercise the minimum care expected of them in the circumstances, who do not examine mortgage or attachment annotations in the title deed record, or who acquire a property for a grossly low price cannot claim good faith under TMK Art. 3/2. For detailed information, you may read our article on the Court of Cassation’s assessment of good faith in simulated real estate sales.
C. Strict Liability of the State (TMK Art. 1007)
For losses arising from forged powers of attorney, irregular registrations or cadastral procedures at land registry directorates, the State is directly and strictly liable. In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (18.04.2024, E. 2023/12232, K. 2024/4610), it was clearly stated that damage arising from the keeping of the land register is based on objective and strict liability, and that the victim may claim compensation directly from the Treasury.
Details of the actions filed to recover ownership in cases of unlawful registration can be found in our guide on the Action for Cancellation and Re-registration of Title.
4. Procedure in the Criminal Investigation and the Prosecutor’s Obligations
In real estate fraud complaints, where the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office superficially characterises the matter merely as a “civil dispute” and issues a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK), the Court of Cassation regards this as an incomplete investigation and a ground for reversal:
- Court of Cassation 11th Criminal Chamber (27.11.2023, E. 2022/6513, K. 2023/8764): Issuing a KYOK merely by describing the matter as a “civil dispute” in respect of a suspect who took the purchase price of a property and sold it to someone else was made a ground for reversal in the interest of the law. The prosecutor’s office must itself investigate the land registry records, the powers of attorney and the authority to transfer.
- Court of Cassation 15th Criminal Chamber (17.05.2021, E. 2021/4335, K. 2021/5018): In files involving allegations of a forged title deed, decisions of non-prosecution issued without obtaining an expert examination on the forgery of the official document are unlawful.
- Court of Cassation 15th Criminal Chamber (24.05.2021, E. 2021/1951, K. 2021/5829): As soon as the prosecutor’s office learns of a suspected offence, it must collect the evidence, take the statements of the complainant and witnesses and obtain the bank account transaction records.
5. Foreign Investors and Regional Risks (Antalya, Alanya, Gazipaşa, Manavgat)
In the Antalya and Alanya region, the following legal risks stand out when foreigners acquire Turkish citizenship or apply for residence permits through property acquisition:
- Simulated Value Inflation: Valuation reports prepared at far above the real value in order to meet the citizenship threshold lead to investigations for forgery of official documents (TCK Art. 204) and to the revocation of citizenship.
- Missing Foreign Exchange Purchase Certificate (DAB): Failure to document foreign currency transfers with a DAB approved by the Central Bank vitiates the transaction in property acquisitions by foreigners.
- 3-Year No-Sale Annotation: It is a legal requirement that an annotation stating “may not be sold for 3 years” be entered in the land register for properties acquired for citizenship purposes. For related inheritance and property rights, you may refer to our article on Inheritance and Property Rights of Foreigners in Türkiye.
6. Multi-Layered Risk Management Table for Property Purchases
In order to eliminate the risks of loss of rights and fraud in property purchase, sale and transfer processes, it is recommended that the following stages be carried out in order:
| Stage / Area of Review | Legal Step to Be Taken | Legal Basis & Protective Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Formal Requirement | Executing the promise-to-sell agreement before a notary in official (drawn-up) form | TBK Art. 237, TMK Art. 706, Notaries Law Art. 60 (a condition of validity) |
| 2. Register Protection | Having the promise-to-sell agreement annotated in the land register immediately | TMK Art. 1009, Land Registry Law Art. 26 (prevents double sales and has effect in rem against third parties) |
| 3. Encumbrances & Zoning | Examining the title deed encumbrance certificate and the zoning/occupancy and permit status with the municipality | TMK Art. 1020, Zoning Law Art. 31/36 (prevents the risk of attachment, mortgage and demolition orders) |
| 4. Financial Trail | Making all payments through a bank with a description stating the block, parcel and independent unit number | Facilitates proof and provides protection in cases of simulation and possible concordat/bankruptcy proceedings |
| 5. Strict Liability | Filing a compensation action directly against the Treasury for faulty/forged acts of land registry officials | TMK Art. 1007 (strict and objective liability of the State) |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is a property sale contract not made before a notary valid?
No. Under Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, property sale and promise-to-sell agreements are absolutely null and void in law unless they are made in official form (at the land registry office or drawn up before a notary). Simple written contracts do not confer a right to transfer of ownership; the buyer can only claim repayment of the price paid under the rules on unjust enrichment.
What penalty does a contractor face for selling the same apartment to more than one person?
The act of a contractor or company manager selling the same independent unit to more than one buyer constitutes aggravated fraud committed in the course of commercial activity under Art. 158/1-h of TCK No. 5237. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment of three to ten years and a judicial fine of up to five thousand days; in addition, the victims retain the right to file actions for cancellation and re-registration of title or for compensation before the civil courts.
Can a person defrauded with a forged title deed recover the money from the State?
If the loss arises directly from an erroneous act of the land registry directorate, its failure to check a forged power of attorney or a registration defect, the State’s strict liability arises under TMK Art. 1007 and the damage can be compensated directly by the Treasury. However, in frauds committed with forged photocopied documents produced entirely outside the land registry office, primary liability lies with the perpetrator of the offence.
Why does the prosecutor issue a decision of non-prosecution in real estate fraud cases?
Where prosecutors do not examine the existence of deceitful conduct in depth, they may treat the dispute as a simple “breach of contract” or “civil dispute” and issue a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK). However, according to Court of Cassation case law, where the suspect collected money through deceit despite having had no ability to perform from the outset, KYOK decisions are unlawful and an objection should be filed with the Criminal Judgeship of Peace within the time limit.
What should be the first step to protect yourself from fraud when buying property?
First, the current title deed encumbrance record of the property should be examined to confirm whether there is any attachment, mortgage or interim injunction annotation on it. As a second step, a promise-to-sell agreement drawn up before a notary should be signed and promptly annotated in the land register, and all payments should be made through the bank.
Conclusion and Legal Assessment
To avoid becoming a victim in property purchase and sale processes across Alanya, Antalya, Gazipaşa and Manavgat, it is essential to examine thoroughly both the land register records and the municipal zoning/occupancy status. In the event of any abuse or suspicion of a forged title deed or double sale, an action for cancellation and re-registration of title with a request for an interim injunction under HMK Art. 389 should be filed without delay, and at the same time a criminal complaint for aggravated fraud under TCK Art. 158 should be lodged with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Property purchase and sale disputes, actions for cancellation and re-registration of title, and criminal investigations concerning fraud allegations are technical and complex processes. In order to prevent losses of rights that are difficult to remedy in such disputes, it is important to consult a real estate lawyer and obtain legal support from the very beginning of the process.
Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.