KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
MASAK Block, Prosecutor's Office Block (CMK Article 128) and New CMK Article 128/A Judicial Suspension Regime
Summary: A freeze placed on a bank account may result from the bank's internal risk decision, MASAK's administrative suspension authority under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549, or a judicial seizure measure under Articles 128 and 128/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) applied by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. The legal basis, duration, and appeal authority for these three types of freezes are entirely different; an appeal not made to the correct authority within the correct timeframe can leave the account holder unable to access their money for months.
The Same Word, Three Different Legal Paths: "Freeze " Whose Decision?
While a notification from a bank stating "your account has been frozen" is often summarized with the same phrase, it conceals one of three entirely different legal mechanisms. Confusing whether it is the bank's own decision, an administrative measure by MASAK, or a judicial seizure order by the prosecutor's office leads to appeals being submitted to the wrong authority and weeks of lost time.
This guide addresses how to distinguish between types of freezes, to which authority and within what timeframe an appeal should be made, and the current legislation as of 2026.
A bank account freeze is not based on a single legal cause. The most frequently encountered types of freezes in practice are; attachments originating from enforcement or tax offices, administrative freezes imposed by the bank based on its own suspicious transaction risk policy, MASAK's suspension decision under Law No. 5549, and judicial seizure measures under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) applied by the Public Prosecutor's Office or the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. Especially in accounts associated with illegal betting, crypto asset transactions, and suspected fraud, MASAK and prosecutor's office freezes are applied in an intertwined manner; therefore, the first step to take is to identify which authority placed the freeze and on what grounds.
Correctly identifying the source of the freeze determines the legal course of action to be followed. A written application should be made to the bank requesting "the name of the authority that imposed the freeze, the file number, and details of the underlying warrant"; appeal petitions prepared without obtaining this information carry the risk of being submitted to the wrong authority.
The Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) has the authority to suspend a transaction for a period of 7 business days if there is suspicion that the transaction is linked to money laundering or terrorist financing. Although this period is clearly defined in the law, in practice, it can extend to between 15 and 60 days due to caseload intensity. If no strong suspicion is found at the end of the review, the freeze is lifted ex officio; if suspicion persists, the file is transferred to the Public Prosecutor's Office, and the process turns into a judicial measure.
If suspicion that the account is linked to a crime intensifies as a result of a MASAK investigation, the Public Prosecutor requests the Criminal Judgeship of Peace to seize the amount in the account in accordance with Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In cases where delay is inconvenient, the prosecutor's office may issue a direct seizure order; however, this decision must be submitted for the judge's approval within 24 hours. From this stage onwards, the freeze becomes part of the criminal investigation, and its removal is only possible with a decision from the relevant Criminal Judgeship of Peace.
New Regime: Article 128/A of the CMK, added to the Code of Criminal Procedure by Article 22 of Law No. 7571 and effective from December 25, 2025, grants banks and crypto asset service providers the authority to ex officio suspend an account for up to 48 hours, especially in cases related to IT crimes and crypto asset transactions. Within this period, the prosecutor can issue a seizure order by written instruction; if the judge does not approve within 48 hours from the seizure, the measure automatically lapses. Under the old regime, it took 5 days for the prosecutor's decision to be submitted to the judge and 10 days for the judge to rule; under the new regime, these periods have been reduced to 24+24 hours; this is a procedural point that must be checked in appeal petitions.
Bank Internal Risk, Bank's Variable, generally short-term, Direct written appeal to the bank, Freeze, compliance/risk policy
MASAK Freeze, Law No. 5549 Art. 19/A, Legally 7 business days, Appeal to MASAK Presidency; if administrative action, annulment lawsuit in Administrative Court (in practice 15-60 days)
Prosecutor's Office / SCP, CMK Art. 128, May continue during investigation/prosecution, Appeal within 7 days from notification to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace that issued the decision
Judicial Suspension, CMK Art. 128/A, 48 hours suspension + 48 hours, Appeal to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace; judge's approval period is monitored New (Regime) judge's approval is checked
Firstly, the authority that placed the freeze, the underlying warrant, and the file number, if any, should be requested from the bank in writing. Then, for a MASAK freeze, a petition requesting "the lifting of the freeze and the issuance of a warrant to the bank" is submitted to the MASAK Presidency; for a freeze under the prosecutor's office or CMK, it is submitted to the relevant Criminal Judgeship of Peace. In this petition, the legitimate source of the money must be proven with documents such as salary statements, invoices, contracts, title deeds, or bank receipts.
If the entire account has been frozen while the suspicious transaction amount is low, it may be requested that the freeze be limited only to the suspicious amount, based on the principle of proportionality. Compliance with the 48+48 hour approval periods stipulated under CMK Art. 128/A should also be checked; it should be argued that a measure for which judge's approval was not obtained within the period automatically becomes void. If no result is achieved, an annulment lawsuit can be filed in the Administrative Court against MASAK's administrative decision, and a compensation lawsuit can be filed under CMK Art. 141 for damages incurred due to unlawful seizure.
Mr. Kerem, an architect, received a notification from his bank stating "your account has been frozen by MASAK instruction" after receiving a 180,000 TL transfer into his account from a relative living abroad for project consultancy. On the same day, automatic payments linked to his salary account also became inoperable.
Mr. Kerem's lawyer first requested the basis of the freeze from the bank in writing, and it was determined that the freeze was an administrative measure imposed by MASAK. An appeal petition proving the legitimacy of the fund's source was submitted to the MASAK Presidency, accompanied by the consultancy agreement, correspondence with his relative, his relative's overseas bank statement, and self-employment receipts related to his architectural activities. The petition also emphasized that freezing the entire account due to a single transaction was disproportionate.
MASAK, finding the submitted documents sufficient after its review within the statutory 7 business day period, decided to lift the entire freeze. The process was concluded within 18 days from the submission of the appeal petition; the file was closed at the administrative stage without being transferred to the prosecutor's office. Frequently Asked Questions
I can't even withdraw my salary, what should I do? First, it should be learned in writing from the bank whether the freeze is an internal bank decision, a MASAK decision, or a prosecutor's decision. For vital payments such as salaries, it is possible to request partial withdrawal permission from the court or MASAK. Making this request with a petition supported by concrete documents increases the likelihood of a positive outcome.
MASAK freeze says 7 business days, but my account has been frozen for 2 months, isn't this illegal? The 7-business-day period in the law is the target period for MASAK to complete its administrative review; in practice, this period may actually be exceeded due to caseload intensity. Exceeding the period alone does not mean the freeze is unlawful, but an appeal can be made to MASAK and, if necessary, to the Administrative Court on the grounds of violating the principle of reasonable time.
The freeze has been lifted, but I suffered damages during this process, can I get compensation? Persons who have suffered damages due to an unlawfully applied seizure can file a compensation lawsuit against the state under Article 141 et seq. of the CMK. For such a lawsuit to be filed, the unlawfulness of the measure and the damage must be concretely proven; in cases of damages related to MASAK's administrative decision, the remedy of filing a full remedy lawsuit in the Administrative Court is considered.
Appeal to the wrong authority: Confusing a MASAK freeze with a prosecutor's freeze leads to the appeal petition being submitted to the wrong authority and loss of time. Appeal petition without evidence: Abstract statements like "My money is clean, I have nothing to do with the crime" are largely rejected because no concrete documents are presented.
Missing the 7-day appeal period: Failure to appeal against seizure decisions under the CMK within 7 days from notification leads to the decision becoming final. Failure to raise a proportionality objection: Failure to object to freezing the entire account due to a low-value transaction causes an unnecessary suffering to be endured.
A bank account freeze is subject to entirely different legal regimes depending on its source, and each regime has its own specific duration, appeal authority, and burden of proof. Especially with CMK Art. 128/A, judicial suspension processes have accelerated further, making the tracking of procedural deadlines decisive. Correctly identifying the type of freeze and an appropriate, evidence-backed appeal strategy ensures a quick and favorable outcome.
Important Legal Disclaimer: The legal explanations, tables, and example scenario in this guide have been prepared by Küheylan Law Firm for general informational purposes based on the legislation in force as of 2026. The text does not constitute legal advice; the course of action may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case, the type of freeze, and the procedural stage of the file. Since procedural errors or missing deadlines in MASAK and prosecutor's office freezes can lead to financial right losses that are difficult to remedy, it is recommended that the process be conducted with the support of a lawyer. © 2026 Küheylan Law Firm. All Rights Reserved.
Küheylan Law Firm — Burhaniye Mh. Neşetbey Sk. No:12/5 Kat:5 Daire:3 Üsküdar/İstanbul — info@kuheylan.av.tr — kuheylanhukuk.com
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK