Unpaid Fund and Brokerage Victims in Turkey: Which Judicial Route? YTM, Damages Action and Administrative Courts

Author: Av. Hüseyin AydınPublished: 21 October 2026

Attorney Hüseyin Aydın – Alanya Lawyer

Short answer: When a person who invested through an investment fund or a brokerage firm cannot get their money back, this does not correspond to a single legal problem. The first step is to determine why the money is not being paid. If the institution has collapsed or cannot return client assets, the first addressee is the Yatırımcı Tazmin Merkezi (Investor Compensation Center, YTM). If the institution is still operating but the account has been depleted through irregular transactions, an action for damages before the civil (ordinary) courts is filed. If the loss arises from deficient supervision by the Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu (Capital Markets Board, SPK), a full remedy action (tam yargı davası) before the administrative courts comes into play. If money was handed over to an unauthorised structure under the name of a “fund”, the criminal route and the civil route are pursued together.

The most common mistake in practice is filing the action against the wrong party or before the wrong court. As a result, the action is dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction or the absence of a precondition to suit, while time limits continue to run in the meantime. This guide addresses, point by point, this question frequently faced also by Turkish and foreign investors living in Alanya, Antalya and the surrounding area (Gazipaşa, Mahmutlar, Konaklı). The text is based on Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (SPKn), decisions of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), the Council of State (Danıştay) and the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), and academic works registered with the YÖK National Thesis Center (Ulusal Tez Merkezi).

1. Diagnosis first: Why is your money not being paid?

In everyday language, the expression “fund victim” covers very different situations. The judicial route to be pursued, the counterparty and the time limit vary accordingly. The table below has been prepared to make the initial distinction:

Situation	First addressee	Judicial route	Main legal basis
Participation units of an SPK-authorised investment fund are not being redeemed; the fund is in liquidation	Portfolio management company and portfolio custodian	Civil courts (action for damages and receivables)	SPKn Art. 52, 53, 55/6, 56
The brokerage firm has collapsed; cash or shares in the account cannot be returned	Investor Compensation Center	First a written application to the YTM; for the balance, liquidation proceedings and litigation	SPKn Art. 46/5-6, 82-86, 97
The institution is operating, but losses were incurred through transactions outside instructions or contrary to the risk profile	Brokerage firm or portfolio management company	Civil courts (commercial court of first instance or consumer court)	TBK Art. 112, 506; SPKn Art. 46/5
The loss arose from deficient oversight and supervision by the SPK	Capital Markets Board	Administrative courts (full remedy action)	SPKn Art. 134; İYUK Art. 13
Money was collected without authorisation under the name of a “fund” or “investment trust”	Against the perpetrators and the responsible company	Criminal investigation together with a civil action	SPKn Art. 109, 110; TCK Art. 158; TBK Art. 49, 72

To make this distinction, the first step is to check whether the institution appears on the SPK’s lists of authorised institutions, and whether there is any decision concerning it on the Public Disclosure Platform (Kamuyu Aydınlatma Platformu, KAP) or in SPK bulletins on suspension of activities, compensation or gradual liquidation (tedricî tasfiye).

2. Statutory safeguard in investment funds: Segregation of fund assets

The legal position of a person investing in an SPK-authorised investment fund differs from that of a creditor lending to a company. Under SPKn Art. 52/1, an investment fund is a pool of assets without legal personality, managed on the basis of fiduciary ownership with money collected from savers. The consequences are as follows:

1. Fund assets are segregated (SPKn Art. 53/1-2): The assets of the fund are separate from the assets of the portfolio management company and the custodian. Even if the management of these institutions is transferred to the state, fund assets cannot be used for any other purpose, cannot be attached even for public receivables, and do not form part of the bankruptcy estate.
2. On liquidation, payment is made only to unitholders (SPKn Art. 53/3): Even if the portfolio management company collapses, the fund’s assets are distributed not to the company’s creditors but to the holders of participation units.
3. Liability of the custodian (SPKn Art. 56/2-3): The institution providing portfolio custody services is liable for losses caused to unitholders by failing to fulfil its obligations. The Law expressly reserves the right of shareholders or unitholders to bring an action.
4. The manager’s duty of care (SPKn Art. 52/3-4 and 55/6): The portfolio management company is obliged to safeguard the interests of unitholders. In matters not regulated by the Law, the provisions of TBK Art. 502-514 (mandate) apply by analogy. Under TBK Art. 506/3, the duty of care is measured against the conduct of a prudent agent.

In practice, this means the following: if the assets in the fund’s portfolio actually exist, the unitholder as a rule suffers loss not from the money “disappearing”, but from a decline in market value or a management error. A decline in market value alone is not compensated. Management contrary to the fund’s internal regulation, prospectus or risk value, however, gives rise to liability for damages.

3. If the institution has collapsed: The Investor Compensation Center route

The Investor Compensation Center was established under SPKn Art. 83 as a public legal entity administered and represented by the SPK. Investment firms are required to participate in the YTM. The YTM process works step by step as follows:

3.1. The compensation decision is taken by the SPK

Under SPKn Art. 82/1, if the SPK determines that an investment firm has failed, or will shortly be unable, to meet its obligations to make cash payments or deliver capital market instruments, it takes a decision to compensate investors. This decision is taken within three months of the determination of the situation. Claims at banks qualifying as deposits or participation funds fall outside this system (SPKn Art. 82/2). Such claims are subject to the regime of the Tasarruf Mevduatı Sigorta Fonu (Savings Deposit Insurance Fund).

3.2. What is compensated and what is not?

• Covered (SPKn Art. 84/1): Claims arising from the non-payment of cash held or managed by the investment firm on behalf of the investor, or from the non-delivery of capital market instruments.
• Not covered (SPKn Art. 84/2): Losses arising from investment advice or from price movements in the market. In other words, a loss of the type “my shares lost value” cannot be claimed from the YTM.
• Persons not compensated (SPKn Art. 84/4): Board members and managers of the institution, shareholders holding five percent or more of its shares, their spouses and blood relatives and relatives by marriage up to the second degree, group companies, and persons responsible for the events that led to the financial difficulties.
• Suspicion of crime (SPKn Art. 84/3): Related claims of persons convicted of market fraud or money laundering are excluded. Payments to persons who are the subject of a criminal complaint are suspended until the judgment becomes final.

3.3. Maximum compensation amount

Under SPKn Art. 84/5, the maximum amount payable to each eligible investor is set in the Law at one hundred thousand Turkish lira and is increased every year by the revaluation rate. The President of the Republic may increase this amount up to five times. The limit covers all claims of one investor against the same institution, regardless of the number, type or currency of accounts. Assigning the claim to another person in order to exceed the maximum amount has no effect. The amount applicable for the current year should be checked separately in SPK and YTM announcements on the date of application.

3.4. Form of application and the one-year time limit

1. The claim is made to the YTM in writing (SPKn Art. 85/1).
2. The right to claim compensation becomes time-barred one year after the announcement of the compensation decision. This is the time limit most often overlooked.
3. After determining the eligible persons and amounts, the YTM makes payment within three months. This period may be extended by up to three more months with SPK approval (SPKn Art. 85/2).
4. Capital market instruments held on behalf of the investor are primarily distributed in kind. The compensation amount is calculated taking into account the institution’s set-off claims as well (SPKn Art. 85/3).
5. The YTM is subrogated to the investor’s rights to the extent of the amount it has paid (SPKn Art. 85/4).

3.5. What happens to the balance exceeding the maximum amount?

The part of the claim exceeding the maximum amount is not lost. The balance is pursued within the institution’s gradual liquidation or bankruptcy:

• Client assets are not the institution’s property: Investors’ cash and capital market instruments held with investment firms are tracked separately from the firm’s own assets. These assets cannot be attached for the firm’s debts and cannot be included in the bankruptcy estate (SPKn Art. 46/5-6). Under Art. 46/7-8, added by Law No. 7518, client cash at banks is also held in separate accounts.
• Client claims have priority in gradual liquidation: Under SPKn Art. 86/5, client claims are paid first from the assets of the institution being liquidated. If the assets are insufficient, payment is made pro rata (garameten). Public receivables and the YTM’s claim arising from subrogation come after this.
• No individual enforcement proceedings: No enforcement proceedings under the Execution and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) or Law No. 6183 may be initiated against an institution subject to a gradual liquidation decision, and proceedings already started are stayed (SPKn Art. 86/4). Similar protection exists for institutions whose operating licence has been permanently revoked (SPKn Art. 97/2). The claim must therefore be lodged in the liquidation process conducted by the YTM.
• Personal liability of managers and shareholders: The SPK may request the personal bankruptcy of shareholders, board members and managers whose responsibility has been established (SPKn Art. 98). The YTM may also request interim injunctions and precautionary attachments without security over the assets of these persons (SPKn Art. 86/7).

3.6. Standing error: Against whom is the action brought if the assets have passed to the YTM?

Regional courts of appeal dismiss actions brought against the issuer or the bank concerning capital market instruments whose ownership has passed to the YTM by operation of law, on the ground of lack of standing of the defendant (pasif husumet yokluğu). The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (BAM), 43rd Civil Chamber, held that compensation in kind or in cash for assets transferred to the YTM is the responsibility of the YTM and that the claimant should direct the claim to the YTM (İstanbul BAM 43. HD, E. 2024/334, K. 2024/1526, T. 24.10.2024; to the same effect, İstanbul BAM 43. HD, E. 2022/869, K. 2022/1443, T. 27.12.2022). The Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 11th Civil Chamber has also reviewed the first-instance and appellate assessment regarding lack of legal interest in an action filed before the YTM application process was completed (Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2021/629, K. 2022/5285, T. 27.06.2022).

4. If the institution is still operating: Action for damages in the civil courts

If the brokerage firm or portfolio management company continues to operate, but the investor’s money has been depleted through transactions outside instructions, management contrary to the risk profile, employee fraud or inadequate disclosure, the route is a private-law action for damages. The counterparty is the institution itself. The YTM does not step in in this case, because the issue is not an “inability to return” but a breach of contract.

4.1. Legal bases of liability

• Breach of contract (TBK Art. 112): Breach of obligations under the framework agreement, portfolio management agreement or brokerage agreement.
• The agent’s duty of care and loyalty (TBK Art. 506): In a portfolio management relationship, the standard of a prudent agent applies.
• Unauthorised use of client assets (SPKn Art. 46/5): Using assets for other purposes without the investor’s express written consent is prohibited.
• Tort (TBK Art. 49): Particularly in cases of fraudulent conduct by employees, the institution’s vicarious liability as employer also comes into play.
• Liability for public disclosure documents (SPKn Art. 10 and 32): The issuer and other signatories are jointly and severally liable for false, misleading and incomplete information in the prospectus or other public disclosure documents. The limitation period for these claims is only six months (SPKn Art. 32/6).

4.2. The approach of the Court of Cassation

• Portfolio management contrary to the risk profile: In a case reviewed by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 11th Civil Chamber, it was established through an SPK examination that the client could tolerate a loss of at most 20% over a three-month period, yet the portfolio lost approximately 50% of its value and the loss was increased through high-risk derivatives transactions. The court of first instance held the portfolio management company liable for the loss incurred, but partially upheld the claim by deducting from the damages the loss ratio the investor had declared he could tolerate. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2020/6040, K. 2021/4503, T. 27.05.2021).
• Fraudulent transactions by an employee: In a case where an employee used deceptive schemes to create the impression that securities existed in the account, the judgment holding the brokerage firm liable on the ground that it had created unjustified reliance was upheld by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2008/7610, K. 2010/3198, T. 23.03.2010).
• Contributory fault: In a case where continuing to trade despite losses was found contrary to the ordinary course of life, the investor was also held 30% at fault and the judgment was upheld (Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2012/7070, K. 2013/7688, T. 18.04.2013). The investor’s own instructions, failure to object to account statements and experience may be grounds for reducing damages.

5. Competent court: Commercial court of first instance or consumer court?

This is the point that leads most often to procedural dismissals in practice, and there is no single settled solution. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a matter of public order and is examined ex officio at every stage of the proceedings.

View	Reasoning	Example decision
The consumer court has jurisdiction	Under Art. 3/1-k and l of Law No. 6502, an individual investor acting for non-commercial or non-professional purposes is a consumer. Art. 49 treats “investment” services as financial services. Under Art. 73/1, actions arising from consumer transactions are heard by the consumer court.	Ankara BAM 21. HD, E. 2023/994, K. 2023/1036, T. 05.07.2023
The commercial court of first instance has jurisdiction	The investor acts with the aim of profit, and capital market transactions are commercial in nature. If the commercial purpose is expressly stated in the agreement, the investor is not considered a consumer.	Yargıtay HGK, E. 2017/11-2348, K. 2019/82, T. 07.02.2019 (a leveraged trading dispute in which the “commercial” purpose was expressly stated in the subject clause of the agreement)

The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 21st Civil Chamber, emphasised that the reasoning of the decision of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers (Yargıtay HGK) rested on the commercial purpose having been expressly written into the agreement. Looking at the transaction amount, the Chamber accepted the investor as an individual investor and held that the consumer court had jurisdiction. Accordingly, the following questions should be answered in each specific case:

• Is the investor a merchant, or are they investing personal savings?
• Is the commercial purpose expressly stated in the “subject” clause of the framework agreement?
• Do the volume and frequency of transactions point to a professional activity?
• Has the investor been classified as a “professional client” under SPK regulations?

If it is concluded that the consumer court has jurisdiction, under Art. 73/5 of Law No. 6502 the action may also be filed before the consumer court at the consumer’s place of residence. For example, an investor living in Alanya may file an action against an Istanbul-based brokerage firm at their own place of residence. If the case is considered a commercial case, the general and special rules on venue apply.

6. Mediation as a precondition to suit and the TSPB Arbitration Committee

6.1. Applying to a mediator is mandatory before filing suit

• If it is a commercial case: In receivable and damages actions concerning a sum of money, having applied to a mediator before filing suit is a precondition to suit (Turkish Commercial Code, TTK Art. 5/A).
• If it is a consumer case: Mediation is also a precondition to suit in disputes heard by consumer courts. However, disputes falling within the jurisdiction of consumer arbitration committees are excluded (Law No. 6502 Art. 73/A).

Because of the uncertainty regarding jurisdiction, defining the dispute in the mediation application so as to cover both possibilities reduces the risk of a possible procedural dismissal.

6.2. TSPB Customer Disputes Arbitration Committee

Türkiye Sermaye Piyasaları Birliği (Capital Markets Association of Türkiye, TSPB) is tasked with establishing an infrastructure for resolving disputes arising from its members’ activities under the SPKn (SPKn Art. 74/2-g). In practice, the Customer Disputes Arbitration Committees within the TSPB issue compensation decisions in favour of investors, particularly in leveraged trading disputes. This route is fast and free of charge, but the following points should be noted:

• A decision of the arbitration committee does not remove the investor’s right to apply to the courts. In a case reviewed by the Council of State (Danıştay), it can be seen that although the compensation awarded by the arbitration committee was paid, the investor found this amount insufficient and filed an action before the consumer court (Danıştay 13. D., E. 2021/4235, K. 2024/5786, T. 23.12.2024).
• The SPK may impose an administrative fine on an institution that does not comply with an arbitration committee decision, which increases the practical effect of the decision (Danıştay 13. D., E. 2021/3651, K. 2024/5477, T. 16.12.2024).
• An application to the arbitration committee may not automatically suspend limitation periods and preclusive time limits. If there is a time-limit risk, litigation and mediation should be considered in parallel.

7. Administrative proceedings against the SPK: Full remedy action

Some victims argue that the loss arose because the SPK did not perform its oversight and supervisory duties in time. This claim is raised not before the civil courts but before the administrative courts:

1. Judicial route: Administrative actions against Board decisions are heard by the administrative courts (SPKn Art. 134). The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) held that compensation sought on the basis of service fault (hizmet kusuru), alleging that the SPK failed to perform its administrative duties and did not carry out the necessary inspections, falls within administrative jurisdiction (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Hukuk Bölümü, E. 2019/7, K. 2019/120, T. 25.02.2019). Commercial courts of first instance likewise decline jurisdiction in such claims as regards the SPK on the ground of the judicial route.
2. The Borsa İstanbul distinction: Actions against stock exchanges, however, are heard by the civil courts pursuant to SPKn Art. 65. The Council of State (Danıştay) 13th Chamber referred to the decision of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes to this effect (Danıştay 13. D., E. 2020/95, K. 2020/267, T. 30.01.2020). If actions are to be brought against both the SPK and Borsa İstanbul for the same event, it should be borne in mind that the judicial route is split by defendant.
3. Court with venue: Where the act relied upon as the cause of the loss was carried out by the SPK, the Council of State 13th Chamber held the Ankara Administrative Court to be the competent venue under İYUK (Administrative Procedure Law) Art. 36/a (Danıştay 13. D., E. 2021/999, K. 2021/1026, T. 23.03.2021).
4. Mandatory prior application: Before filing a full remedy action, an application must be made to the administration within one year of learning of the administrative act and in any case within five years of the date of the act. If the request is rejected or not answered within thirty days, the action is filed within the time limit for filing suit (İYUK Art. 13/1).
5. Difficulty of proof: The hardest element in these actions is the causal link. For example, in a case concerning companies that sold shares without authorisation, the administrative court dismissed the action on the ground of lack of a causal link, stating that the SPK had performed its duty by imposing an administrative fine and filing a criminal complaint (the first-instance decision subject to appellate review in Danıştay 13. D., E. 2009/4155, K. 2011/2326, T. 18.05.2011). This route should be regarded not as a substitute for the action against the institution, but as an exceptional supplementary route.

8. Unauthorised “fund” structures: Criminal and civil routes together

In recent years, money has been collected via social media, messaging groups and copycat websites with promises of “high-yield funds”, “guaranteed investment” or leveraged trading abroad. The YTM has also issued public announcements regarding fraud through copycat websites and communications. Because these structures are not authorised by the SPK, they do not benefit from the YTM safeguard. The routes available to the victim are as follows:

1. Criminal complaint: Unauthorised capital market activity (SPKn Art. 109/2) is punishable by imprisonment of two to five years. Misuse of assets entrusted to an investment firm constitutes the offence of qualified breach of trust (SPKn Art. 110/1-a). Depending on the circumstances, the fraud provisions (Turkish Criminal Code, TCK Art. 158) may also apply. The victim may join the prosecution as an intervening party (katılan).
2. Notification to the SPK: The SPK is authorised to take all measures to stop unauthorised activities, to block access to internet publications, and to bring actions for the return of cash or capital market instruments to the rightful owners (SPKn Art. 99/1, 99/3). The SPK’s power to sue is limited to one year from discovery and in any case five years from the act.
3. Civil action and precautionary attachment: The criminal process does not automatically liquidate the perpetrator’s assets and distribute them to the victim. To recover the money, a tort action for damages should be filed against the perpetrators and the company, and if necessary a precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) should be requested.
4. Extended limitation period: If the damage arises from an offence for which criminal law provides a longer limitation period, that longer period applies (TBK Art. 72/1). This rule is important in cases where the general two-year period has been missed.

9. Time limits that must not be missed

Claim	Time limit	Legal basis
Compensation application to the YTM	1 year from the announcement of the compensation decision	SPKn Art. 85/1
Damages arising from public disclosure documents	6 months from the date the loss occurred	SPKn Art. 32/6
Damages in tort	2 years from learning of the damage and the liable person, in any case 10 years; if it constitutes an offence, the criminal limitation period	TBK Art. 72
Claims arising from breach of contract	As a rule, 10 years	TBK Art. 146
Prior application for a full remedy action against the SPK	1 year from learning, in any case 5 years; after rejection or 30 days of silence, the time limit for filing suit	İYUK Art. 13
Application to the YTM for the return of time-barred deposits transferred to it	Application to the YTM for assets transferred 10 years after the last request, transaction or instruction on the account	SPKn Art. 83/4

In cases of gradual liquidation and suspension of activities, limitation periods and preclusive time limits that can be interrupted by an enforcement step do not run by operation of law (SPKn Art. 86/4, 97/2-3). However, this rule does not remove the one-year time limit provided for the YTM application.

10. Step-by-step roadmap

1. Gather the documents: Framework agreement, risk disclosure form, appropriateness test, account statements, money transfer receipts, correspondence, phone records and screenshots.
2. Check the institution’s status: The SPK list of authorised institutions, KAP and SPK bulletins. Is there a compensation, liquidation or suspension decision?
3. Send a written notice to the institution: Demand the return of the money or assets through a notary public. The date of default is decisive in calculating damages and interest.
4. File a complaint with the SPK: SPK examinations and administrative fine decisions constitute strong evidence in a civil action. In the portfolio management case mentioned above and upheld by the Court of Cassation, the findings of the SPK examination also appeared in the reasoning.
5. If there is a compensation decision: Apply to the YTM in writing within one year of the announcement. Pursue the part exceeding the maximum amount in the liquidation process.
6. If there is no compensation decision: Determine the competent court, apply to mediation, and if no settlement is reached, file the action. If necessary, consider the TSPB Arbitration Committee route in parallel.
7. If an unauthorised structure is involved: File a criminal complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, notify the SPK, and use a civil action together with a precautionary attachment.
8. If fault on the part of the SPK is alleged: Observing the time limits in İYUK Art. 13, first apply to the SPK, then file a full remedy action before the administrative court.

The same routes apply to foreign national investors living in Alanya and Antalya. In relationships established with a brokerage firm or portfolio management company resident in Türkiye, the Turkish courts and Turkish law apply. For platforms contacted from abroad that are not authorised in Türkiye, the criminal route and the rules of the Turkish Code on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) concerning disputes with a foreign element should also be assessed separately.

11. Frequently Asked Questions

My investment fund made a loss. Can I get money from the YTM?

No. Losses arising from price movements in the market are not covered by compensation (SPKn Art. 84/2). The YTM steps in only when the investment firm cannot return the cash or capital market instruments it holds. If the loss arose from a management error, an action for damages against the portfolio management company should be considered.

The brokerage firm has collapsed. Are my shares gone too?

As a rule, no. Investors’ cash and capital market instruments held with the brokerage firm are separate from the firm’s own assets and do not form part of the bankruptcy estate (SPKn Art. 46/5-6). Instruments held on behalf of the investor are primarily distributed in kind during the compensation process (SPKn Art. 85/3). Problems arise where records have been kept incompletely or irregularly.

The amount paid by the YTM does not cover my loss. How do I recover the rest?

The balance is pursued with priority as a client claim in the gradual liquidation or bankruptcy process (SPKn Art. 86/5). In addition, actions for damages and personal bankruptcy proceedings against liable managers and shareholders may come into play (SPKn Art. 98).

In which court should I file the action?

For an action for damages against the institution, there is a divergence of views between the commercial court of first instance and the consumer court. Whether the investor is an individual investor and whether the commercial purpose is expressly stated in the agreement are decisive. An action against the SPK, on the other hand, is heard by the administrative court.

Do I have to file a civil action while the criminal case is ongoing?

A criminal case does not automatically ensure the return of the money. To prevent the risk of time-bar and the possibility of the perpetrator concealing assets, a civil action and precautionary attachment should be considered separately.

12. Conclusion

The judicial route available to victims of funds and brokerage firms is determined by the reason for non-payment:

1. If the institution cannot return client assets, the first addressee is the YTM. The application must be made in writing within one year of the announcement of the compensation decision.
2. If the institution is operating but the account has been depleted through unlawful transactions, an action for damages in the civil courts is filed. Whether the competent court is the commercial court of first instance or the consumer court must be determined according to the specific case, and a mediator must be approached before filing suit.
3. If supervisory fault on the part of the SPK is alleged, the route is a full remedy action in the administrative courts. Actions against Borsa İstanbul, however, are heard by the civil courts.
4. For money given to unauthorised structures, the criminal route and the civil route should be pursued together.

An action filed against the wrong party or before the wrong court may lead to the loss of rights subject to short time limits. For your specific disputes, and to avoid any loss of rights, it is advisable to consult a lawyer specialised in this field.

13. Sources

Legislation (consolidated text of the Ministry of Justice, checked as of 21.10.2026; the binding text is the Official Gazette): Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu) Art. 10, 32, 37, 46, 52-56, 65, 74, 82-86, 96-99, 109, 110, 134; Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu) Art. 49, 72, 112, 146, 502-514; Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu) Art. 4, 5/A; Law on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun) Art. 3, 49, 73, 73/A; Administrative Procedure Law (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu) Art. 13; Turkish Criminal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu) Art. 158. Institutional information: Yatırımcı Tazmin Merkezi (Investor Compensation Center).

Court decisions:

• Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), E. 2017/11-2348, K. 2019/82, T. 07.02.2019
• Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2020/6040, K. 2021/4503, T. 27.05.2021
• Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2021/629, K. 2022/5285, T. 27.06.2022
• Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2012/7070, K. 2013/7688, T. 18.04.2013
• Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2008/7610, K. 2010/3198, T. 23.03.2010
• Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, Civil Division (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Hukuk Bölümü), E. 2019/7, K. 2019/120, T. 25.02.2019
• Council of State (Danıştay) 13th Chamber, E. 2021/4235, K. 2024/5786, T. 23.12.2024
• Council of State (Danıştay) 13th Chamber, E. 2021/3651, K. 2024/5477, T. 16.12.2024
• Council of State (Danıştay) 13th Chamber, E. 2021/999, K. 2021/1026, T. 23.03.2021
• Council of State (Danıştay) 13th Chamber, E. 2020/95, K. 2020/267, T. 30.01.2020
• Council of State (Danıştay) 13th Chamber, E. 2009/4155, K. 2011/2326, T. 18.05.2011
• Ankara Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) 21st Civil Chamber, E. 2023/994, K. 2023/1036, T. 05.07.2023
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) 43rd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/334, K. 2024/1526, T. 24.10.2024
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) 43rd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/869, K. 2022/1443, T. 27.12.2022

Academic works (YÖK National Thesis Center):

• Mehmet Murat İnceoğlu, Aracı Kurumların Hukuki Sorumluluğu (Legal Liability of Brokerage Firms), Doctoral Thesis, Istanbul University, 2003, Thesis No: 140798
• Ferah Türkoğlu, Aracı Kurumlarda Mali Durumun Bozulması ve Yatırımcıları Koruma Fonu (Deterioration of the Financial Position of Brokerage Firms and the Investor Protection Fund), Doctoral Thesis, Marmara University, 2007, Thesis No: 408663
• Özgür Bülbül, Yatırımcıları Koruma Fonu Özelinde Yatırımcı Tazmin Sistemimiz ve Avrupa Birliği Yatırımcı Tazmin Sistemine Uyum Çerçevesinde Yapılması Gerekenler (Our Investor Compensation System with Specific Reference to the Investor Protection Fund and Steps Required for Harmonisation with the European Union Investor Compensation System), Master’s Thesis, Kadir Has University, 2007, Thesis No: 206517
• Evin Kurtoğlu, Aracı Kurumların Hukuki Sorumluluğu (Legal Liability of Brokerage Firms), Master’s Thesis, Bahçeşehir University, 2015, Thesis No: 407867
• Hanım Yıldırım, Sermaye Piyasası Hukukunda Kaldıraçlı Alım Satım İşlemleri (Leveraged Trading Transactions in Capital Markets Law), Master’s Thesis, Ankara University, 2018, Thesis No: 532715
• Nilüfer Özer Şeker, Hukuki Açıdan Menkul Kıymet Yatırım Ortaklıkları ve Borsada İşlem Gören Yatırım Fonları (Securities Investment Trusts and Exchange-Traded Investment Funds from a Legal Perspective), Doctoral Thesis, Erciyes University, 2026, Thesis No: 996839
• Yusuf Ziyaeddin Sönmez, Aracı Kurumların Hukuki Sorumluluğu (Legal Liability of Brokerage Firms), Master’s Thesis, Ankara University, 1997, Thesis No: 62445

Legal Disclaimer: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. As sophoshukuk.com, we do not make any referral, guarantee or promise of results. Each case must be assessed according to its own specific circumstances; for your specific disputes, please obtain professional support from a lawyer.

Related Search Terms and Legal Concepts: judicial remedies for fund victims in Turkey, Investor Compensation Center application, YTM maximum compensation amount, investor rights in brokerage firm bankruptcy, action for damages against a portfolio management company, investment fund loss compensation, brokerage firm consumer court vs commercial court jurisdiction, SPK service fault full remedy action, criminal complaint for unauthorised capital market activity, client claims in gradual liquidation, TSPB arbitration committee application, investment fraud lawyer Alanya, brokerage firm damages action Antalya.