Claims Against Brokers, Custodians and Portfolio Managers in Turkey: Duties, Liability and Remedies for Foreign Institutional Investors

A foreign institution reaches Borsa Istanbul through a chain of intermediaries: its own investment manager and global custodian abroad, and in Turkey a brokerage that executes orders, a local custodian bank, the Central Registry Agency that records holdings and, for fund investments, a portfolio management company and a fund custodian. When markets are disrupted, as in the 2026 fund and manipulation cases, disputes with these intermediaries follow: orders not executed or executed against instructions, positions sold without authority, client assets used for the firm’s own purposes, records that do not match, related-party trades at off-market prices. Turkish law gives the client strong tools. Investment services may be provided only by firms licensed by the Capital Markets Board (Capital Markets Law Arts. 37 and 39). Client cash and securities must be kept apart and may not be used without the client’s written consent (Art. 46(5)). A broker acting for a client owes the duties of an agent: to follow instructions, act loyally and with the care of a prudent professional, and account for everything it receives (Code of Obligations Arts. 505, 506 and 508). Clauses excluding a licensed firm’s liability even for slight negligence are void (Art. 115(3)). This guide sets out these duties, the claims they support, the forum and mandatory mediation, limitation periods and the cross-border questions that arise in a custody chain. It reflects the legislation in force as at 25 October 2026.

The chain between a foreign fund and Borsa Istanbul

Large foreign investors rarely deal with Turkish market institutions directly. Each link in the chain has its own legal basis and its own liability rules, and a loss may be caused at any of them.

This guide concentrates on the Turkish links. Disputes with a foreign investment manager or global custodian are usually governed by the law and forum chosen in their agreements; Turkish law then becomes relevant mainly for what happened at the local level, for Turkish mandatory rules and for any claim brought in Turkey against a Turkish entity.

Investment services and who may provide them

The Capital Markets Law No. 6362 lists the investment services and activities that require a licence (Art. 37(1)):

• ▸ receiving and transmitting orders relating to capital market instruments;
• ▸ executing orders in the client’s name and for its account, or in the firm’s own name and for the client’s account;
• ▸ dealing on own account;
• ▸ portfolio management;
• ▸ investment advice;
• ▸ underwriting and placing public offerings, with or without a firm commitment;
• ▸ operating multilateral trading systems and other organised venues; and
• ▸ safekeeping and administration of instruments on behalf of clients, and portfolio custody.

Providing these services as a regular business requires SPK authorisation, and they may be provided only by investment firms; the rules on investment companies, portfolio management companies and exchanges are reserved (Art. 39(1)). Banks may carry out order reception and execution, dealing on own account, safekeeping and services designated by SPK; investment and development banks may also provide portfolio management, advice and underwriting (Art. 39(9)). Authorised firms receive a licence document listing the services they may provide (Art. 40(1)). SPK may require professional liability insurance (Art. 39(6)).

Three further rules shape the client relationship. Relations between investment firms or portfolio management companies and their clients are governed by written contracts, or contracts concluded remotely by methods SPK accepts as equivalent (Art. 42(2)). SPK may classify investors in order to set the level of protection they receive (Art. 45(4)). And investment firms must establish internal control units and systems appropriate to their services, protecting investors’ rights and interests and ensuring that investor complaints are followed up and resolved (Art. 45(5)). The detailed conduct rules are set by SPK under Art. 45(1).

The legal nature of the client relationship

A brokerage executing orders may act in the client’s name and for its account, or in its own name and for the client’s account (Capital Markets Law Art. 37(1)(b)). The second is the classic commission structure: under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, a commission agent buys or sells securities or movables in its own name and for the principal’s account, for a fee (Art. 532(1)). Subject to the specific commission rules, the rules on mandate (vekâlet) apply (Art. 532(2)). A mandate is a contract by which the agent undertakes to carry out the principal’s business or transactions (Art. 502(1)), and the mandate rules also apply, so far as appropriate, to service contracts not specifically regulated in the Code (Art. 502(2)). Custody, portfolio management and advisory relationships are therefore analysed, absent special rules, through the mandate provisions.

The Commercial Code No. 6102 adds two points. First, disputes arising from the commission provisions (Code of Obligations Arts. 532–545), from custody contracts (Arts. 561–580) and from rules on banks, credit institutions and financial institutions are commercial cases whatever the status of the parties (Commercial Code Art. 4(1)(c) and (f)). They are heard by the commercial court of first instance regardless of value (Art. 5(1)), and for money claims mediation is a condition of the action (Art. 5/A(1)). Second, every merchant must act in all activities of its business as a prudent businessperson (Art. 18(2)), a standard that reinforces the professional duty of care discussed next.

Core duties of the intermediary

The duty of care is professional, not personal. Under Art. 506(3), the question is what a prudent agent providing similar services would have done, not what this particular firm was able to do. For a licensed brokerage or portfolio manager, the comparison is with a competent licensed firm in the Turkish market at the relevant time. Market disruption does not suspend the duty; it changes what a prudent firm would have done, for example in handling large volumes of sell orders, communicating trading halts or applying risk limits.

Delegation deserves attention in a custody chain. An agent that delegates without authority is liable for the substitute’s acts as if they were its own (Art. 507(1)). An agent authorised to delegate is liable only for care in selecting and instructing the substitute (Art. 507(2)). In both cases, the principal may assert directly against the substitute the rights that the agent has against it (Art. 507(3)).

Client assets: segregation and the ban on use

Cash and capital market instruments held by investors at investment firms, in whatever capacity, are monitored separately from the firm’s own assets. Without the investor’s written express consent, they may not be used by the firm outside the purpose of deposit for the benefit of the firm or third parties (Capital Markets Law Art. 46(5)). They cannot be attached for the firm’s debts, even for public receivables, cannot be pledged without the investor’s separate prior written consent, cannot be included in the firm’s bankruptcy estate and cannot be subjected to interim injunctions (Art. 46(6)).

Client cash held at banks is, as a rule, kept in individual accounts opened for the firm’s clients separately from the firm’s own cash. These accounts may not be shown as collateral for loans, and no blocking, pledge or similar restriction may be created over them in the firm’s favour (Art. 46(7)). The bank’s responsibility is limited to the notifications made by the investment firm, and attachment, injunction and similar requests concerning clients with balances in those accounts are notified exclusively to the investment firm and carried out by it (Art. 46(7)). Banks keep these accounts in a separate ledger account and report on them to SPK (Art. 46(8)).

Collateral is treated similarly. Investment firms may require collateral from clients for margin trading, securities lending, short selling and other services, and exchanges and clearing institutions may require collateral from firms and investors (Art. 46(2)). Such collateral may not be used outside its purpose, transferred, attached, pledged, included in a bankruptcy estate or made subject to interim injunctions (Art. 46(4)).

The Code of Obligations supports the same result where a firm acts in its own name. Claims that the agent acquires against third parties in business carried out in its own name for the principal’s account pass automatically to the principal once the principal has performed all its obligations to the agent; in the agent’s bankruptcy, the principal can assert this against the estate and can claim separation of movables acquired for its account (Art. 509).

Records, the Central Registry and proof of holdings

Turkish capital market instruments are, as a rule, issued in dematerialised form, and rights in them are monitored by the Central Registry Agency (Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu, “MKK”) (Capital Markets Law Art. 13(1) and (3)). Book-entry instruments are held in accounts opened in the holder’s name, although SPK may allow accounts to be kept collectively without opening an account in the name of each holder (Art. 13(2)). The records are kept by MKK’s members, such as brokers and custodian banks, in the electronic system MKK operates (Art. 13(3)). For rights over book-entry instruments to be asserted against third parties, the date of notification to MKK is decisive (Art. 13(5)).

MKK and its members are liable for loss suffered by right-holders as a result of incorrect records, in proportion to their fault (Art. 81(5)). MKK may request information and documents from its members and carry out examinations, and members may not refuse information on matters within MKK’s remit on the ground of special rules in their own legislation (Art. 81(4)).

Portfolio managers and fund custodians

A portfolio management company is a joint stock company whose main business is establishing and managing investment funds; it may also provide portfolio management and investment advice to clients (Capital Markets Law Art. 55(1) and (4)). Assets in the portfolios it manages for persons and institutions, where capable of custody, must be kept with a portfolio custody institution in accordance with SPK’s rules (Art. 55(3)). In conducting its business it must protect the interests of the funds it manages, the unit holders and its other clients (Art. 55(6)). For a discretionary mandate, the mandate rules on instructions, loyalty, care and accounting (Code of Obligations Arts. 505–508) apply alongside these provisions.

For investment funds, the assets are delivered to the portfolio custodian to be held in a separate account opened in the fund’s name. The custodian must ensure, among other things, that units are issued and redeemed in accordance with the law and fund rules, that unit values are calculated correctly, that the manager’s instructions are carried out only if lawful, that consideration for transactions is transferred in time, and that the fund’s purchases, sales and portfolio structure comply with the law and fund rules (Capital Markets Law Art. 56(1)). The custodian is liable to the portfolio management company and to unit holders for losses caused by failure to fulfil these obligations (Art. 56(2)).

The manager and the custodian must each claim from the other the losses arising from breaches of the law; the unit holders’ right to sue is preserved (Art. 56(3)). Where the custodian holds assets through other custodians, all of them are jointly and severally liable (Art. 56(4)). The custodian and the manager may not be the same legal person and must act independently of each other and solely in the interests of unit holders (Art. 56(6)), and personnel restrictions prevent overlap of management between them and with brokers trading for the fund (Art. 56(7)). Fund assets are separate from the assets of the manager and custodian and are protected from their creditors (Art. 53), as explained in When a Turkish Issuer or Broker Becomes Insolvent.

For unit holders in the funds liquidated in 2026, Art. 56 means that the custodian is a potential defendant alongside the manager, and that its control duties, especially over valuation and compliance of transactions, are central to any claim. The liquidation process itself is discussed in Turkey’s 2026 Fund Liquidation.

Exclusion and limitation clauses

Standard account-opening and custody terms often limit the firm’s liability. The Code of Obligations sets firm limits on how far this can go:

• ▸ Gross fault. An advance agreement that the debtor will not be liable for its gross fault is absolutely void (Art. 115(1)).
• ▸ Licensed professional services. Where a service, profession or trade requiring expertise can be carried on only with a permit granted by law or by competent authorities, an advance agreement excluding the debtor’s liability even for slight fault is absolutely void (Art. 115(3)). Investment services require SPK authorisation (Capital Markets Law Art. 39(1)).
• ▸ Auxiliaries. A debtor is liable for loss caused by persons it uses to perform, such as employees (Art. 116(1)). This liability can normally be excluded by advance agreement (Art. 116(2)), but not for licensed professional services of the kind described in Art. 115(3) (Art. 116(3)).
• ▸ Limitation periods. The limitation periods in the Code of Obligations cannot be changed by contract (Art. 148), and limitation periods in laws containing commercial provisions cannot be changed by contract unless the law provides otherwise (Commercial Code Art. 6).

Typical claims after a market disruption

A loss caused by market manipulation by third parties is not, by itself, a breach by the intermediary. The question is whether the intermediary did something it should not have done, or failed to do what a prudent firm would have done, and whether that caused a separate loss. Claims against the manipulators and the issuers are discussed in Market Manipulation under Turkish Law and Prospectus and Disclosure Liability in Turkey.

Burden of proof and damages

In contract, the starting point favours the client. If an obligation is not performed at all or not properly, the debtor must compensate the creditor’s resulting loss unless it proves that no fault at all can be attributed to it (Code of Obligations Art. 112). The debtor is generally liable for every degree of fault; the extent of liability depends on the particular nature of the business (Art. 114(1)), and the rules on tort liability apply by analogy to breaches of contract (Art. 114(2)). The client must prove the contract, the breach, the loss and the causal link; the intermediary must then prove absence of fault.

Where liability can rest on more than one ground, for example both contract and tort, the court decides on the ground that gives the injured party the best compensation, unless the injured party has asked otherwise or the law provides otherwise (Art. 60). Where several persons are liable for the same loss, for example a broker and a custodian, they are jointly and severally liable towards the client (Art. 61).

The loss is assessed under the general rules: the injured party must prove its loss, and where the exact amount cannot be proved, the judge determines it equitably in the light of the ordinary course of events and the measures taken by the injured party (Art. 50). Compensation may be reduced where the injured party consented to the harmful act or contributed to the loss (Art. 52). Quantification, interest and currency are covered in Calculating Damages in Turkish Securities Claims.

The regulatory route

A complaint to the Capital Markets Board runs alongside, not instead of, a civil claim. Where SPK finds that a capital market institution has acted contrary to legislation, SPK standards, its articles or fund rules, it may require the breaches to be remedied within a set period, restrict or temporarily suspend the institution’s activities, revoke authorisations or take any other measure it considers appropriate (Capital Markets Law Art. 96(1)). It may also cancel the licences of responsible managers and staff and restrict their signing powers (Art. 96(2)). Where an institution’s finances deteriorate, the broader measures of Art. 97, including investor compensation and gradual liquidation, become available.

None of these measures is an award of damages to the client: compensation is pursued before the courts, apart from the investor compensation scheme for firms that cannot return client assets. A well-documented complaint can, however, produce findings that are valuable in later litigation. SPK may also cooperate and exchange information with foreign regulators under memoranda of understanding, on the basis of reciprocity and professional secrecy (Art. 128(1)(d)). A foreign institution’s home regulator may therefore be part of the picture where conduct by a Turkish firm affected its clients abroad. Challenges to SPK decisions themselves are covered in Suing Turkey’s Capital Markets Board (SPK).

Criminal liability

Misuse of client assets is a serious offence. Selling, using, pledging, hiding or denying capital market instruments, cash or other values deposited or delivered to an investment firm, in book-entry or physical form, for capital market activities, in custody, for management, as collateral or under any other title, for one’s own or another’s benefit, is a qualified form of breach of trust. The penalty under Turkish Penal Code Art. 155(2), which is imprisonment of one to seven years and a judicial fine, may not then be less than three years (Capital Markets Law Art. 110(1)(a)).

The same article covers transactions with related persons at prices, fees or terms clearly different from comparable ones, or contrary to market practice and the principles of prudence and honesty, which reduce the profits or assets of public companies or collective investment institutions (Art. 110(1)(b)–(c)). Corrupting, destroying, altering or making inaccessible the records kept at an investment firm is punishable by two to five years’ imprisonment and a judicial fine (Art. 110(2)). For offences under Art. 110(1)(b) and (c), effective repentance, by paying the amount determined and twice that amount to the Treasury, eliminates or reduces the penalty depending on the stage at which payment is made (Art. 110(3)).

A client harmed by such conduct can file a complaint, follow the investigation through its lawyer and apply to join the prosecution, as explained in Joining a Criminal Case in Turkey as a Foreign Investor. Nothing in this guide suggests that any particular firm or person has committed an offence; the presumption of innocence applies.

Where to bring the claim

A Turkish broker, custodian or portfolio manager can be sued at the court of its registered seat (Code of Civil Procedure Art. 6(1)), at the place of performance of the contract (Art. 10) or, for claims arising from a branch’s transactions, at the branch (Art. 14(1)). As noted above, these are commercial cases heard by the commercial court of first instance (Commercial Code Arts. 4 and 5(1)).

The client agreement may change this. Merchants may agree on one or more competent courts, and unless agreed otherwise the case may then be brought only there (Code of Civil Procedure Art. 17); the agreement must be in writing, identify the legal relationship and name the court (Art. 18(2)). In a relationship with a foreign element, the parties may agree on a foreign court for disputes arising from obligations, proven by written evidence; a Turkish court then hears the case only if the foreign court declines jurisdiction or no objection to jurisdiction is raised (Law No. 5718 Art. 47(1)). These choices are discussed in Suing in Turkey or Abroad.

Some agreements contain an arbitration clause. An arbitration agreement must be in writing, which includes an exchange of communications or electronic records and a reference to a document containing an arbitration clause (Code of Civil Procedure Art. 412(3)). If a court action is brought on a matter covered by it, the defendant may raise the arbitration objection, and the court dismisses the action unless the agreement is null, inoperative or incapable of being performed (Art. 413(1)). Where an arbitration agreement exists, the mandatory mediation rules do not apply (Mediation Law No. 6325 Art. 18/A(18)).

A foreign claimant suing in Turkey must provide security for costs set by the court, unless exempted on the basis of reciprocity (Law No. 5718 Art. 48). Several investors with similar claims against the same intermediary may sue together or coordinate their actions, as explained in Can Foreign Investors Bring a Class Action in Turkey?

Mandatory mediation

In commercial cases whose subject is a sum of money, applying to a mediator before suing is a condition of the action (Commercial Code Art. 5/A(1)). For an investor’s damages claim against a broker, custodian or portfolio manager, this is the normal first formal step.

For a foreign institution, mediation is less a formality than an opportunity. A regulated intermediary with a documented exposure may prefer a confidential settlement, especially where an SPK examination or criminal file is pending. The power of attorney must expressly cover mediation and settlement, and if signed abroad must be apostilled, as discussed in Representing Foreign Institutional Investors.

Limitation periods

Claims arising from mandate and commission contracts are subject to a five-year limitation period (Code of Obligations Art. 147(5)). Other contractual claims, unless the law provides otherwise, are subject to ten years (Art. 146). Limitation starts when the claim falls due (Art. 149(1)). Tort claims, for example against a person with whom the investor has no contract, are time-barred two years from when the injured party learned of the loss and the person liable, and in any case ten years from the act; where the act is a criminal offence with a longer limitation period, that longer period applies (Art. 72(1)).

Limitation is interrupted if the debtor acknowledges the debt, in particular by paying interest or part of the debt or giving security, or if the creditor brings an action or defence before a court or arbitral tribunal, starts enforcement or registers the claim with a bankruptcy estate (Art. 154). The mediation application suspends limitation until the final minutes (Law No. 6325 Art. 18/A(15)). None of these periods can be shortened or extended by contract (Code of Obligations Art. 148; Commercial Code Art. 6).

Governing law and the custody chain

Turkish private international law lets the parties choose the law governing a contract, expressly or in a way clearly evident from the contract or circumstances (Law No. 5718 Art. 24(1)). Without a choice, the contract is governed by the law most closely connected with it, presumed to be the law of the habitual residence or place of business of the party providing the characteristic performance (Art. 24(4)). For a brokerage, custody or management service, that is ordinarily the service provider. A Turkish broker’s or custodian’s agreement with its client is therefore likely to be governed by Turkish law, unless another law has been chosen.

Even where foreign law governs, Turkish rules that are directly applicable by virtue of their purpose and scope apply (Art. 6), and a foreign rule whose application would be clearly contrary to Turkish public order is set aside (Art. 5). The client-asset protections of Capital Markets Law Art. 46, which define what a Turkish investment firm may do with assets it holds and what its creditors may reach, are strong candidates for this treatment. The protection against attachment and bankruptcy operates in Turkey whatever law governs the contract.

In a chain with a foreign global custodian and a Turkish sub-custodian, the investor typically has a contract only with the global custodian. If the relevant relationships are governed by Turkish law, Code of Obligations Art. 507(3) allows the principal to claim directly against the substitute using the agent’s rights against it. Where foreign law governs the upper links, the investor may still have a direct tort claim in Turkey against a Turkish firm that misused assets or falsified records, and a claim against its global custodian under the custody agreement. Mapping the agreements in the chain, with their governing law and forum clauses, is the first legal task.

If the intermediary fails

If a Turkish broker or custodian becomes insolvent, the client’s position depends on whether its assets were properly segregated. Securities and cash held for clients are outside the firm’s bankruptcy estate (Capital Markets Law Art. 46(6)); securities held for investors are distributed to them first in an investor compensation process (Art. 85(3)); and shortfalls are compensated by the Investor Compensation Center up to a statutory ceiling per investor (Art. 84(5)). The concordat, bankruptcy and gradual liquidation procedures, with their short deadlines, are set out in When a Turkish Issuer or Broker Becomes Insolvent. Where a firm’s assets or its managers’ assets may be dissipated, pre-judgment measures are explained in Freezing Assets in Turkey for Investor Claims.

Evidence to request

Intermediary disputes are decided on records, almost all of which the intermediary holds. The accounting duty of Code of Obligations Art. 508 gives the client a substantive right to an account of the business carried out for it, independent of litigation. Merchants must keep their books, business correspondence and supporting documents for ten years (Commercial Code Art. 82), and in litigation the court can order a party or a third party to produce documents (Code of Civil Procedure Arts. 220–221). These tools are discussed in Obtaining and Preserving Evidence in Turkey.

• ▸ the signed client agreement, account-opening documents, investor classification and any mandate or investment guidelines;
• ▸ order logs with time stamps, recorded calls and electronic messages for the relevant period;
• ▸ execution reports with prices and, where relevant, counterparties, and the same-day notifications required for self-dealing (Code of Obligations Art. 543(2));
• ▸ account statements, custody statements and MKK records for the client’s account;
• ▸ collateral, lending and pledge records relating to the client’s assets;
• ▸ records of the client-money accounts at banks under Capital Markets Law Art. 46(7); and
• ▸ the firm’s internal complaint file and any correspondence with SPK about the matter (Art. 45(5)).

Action plan

1. 1. Map the chain. Identify every intermediary, the agreements between each link, their governing law, forum and arbitration clauses.
2. 2. Reconcile. Compare the institution’s, the global custodian’s, the local custodian’s and the MKK records; document every discrepancy.
3. 3. Preserve and demand. Send a formal demand for an account (Code of Obligations Art. 508) and for preservation of records; consider pre-action preservation of evidence where records may be lost.
4. 4. Classify the claim. Contract (mandate, commission, custody) or tort; identify the applicable limitation periods and the earliest deadline.
5. 5. Check the exclusion clauses. Test any limitation of liability against Arts. 115 and 116.
6. 6. Consider the regulator and the prosecutor. A complaint to SPK, and where assets were misused, a criminal complaint under Capital Markets Law Art. 110.
7. 7. Mediate. Apply for mandatory mediation with a power of attorney that covers settlement; use the six to eight weeks to test settlement.
8. 8. Sue. If no agreement is reached, file before the commercial court with the final minutes and the security for costs, or start arbitration where agreed.

Deadlines

Frequently asked questions

Who may provide brokerage, custody and portfolio management in Turkey?

Only investment firms authorised by the Capital Markets Board, and banks for the services the law allows them; portfolio management companies need their own authorisation (Capital Markets Law Arts. 37, 39 and 55).

What is the legal nature of a Turkish brokerage relationship?

A broker executing in its own name for the client’s account is a commission agent under Code of Obligations Art. 532; the mandate rules of Arts. 502–514 apply unless the commission rules provide otherwise.

Can a Turkish broker use client securities or cash?

Not without the client’s written express consent. Client assets are kept separately from the firm’s assets and cannot be pledged without the client’s prior written consent or attached for the firm’s debts (Capital Markets Law Art. 46(5)–(6)).

Does the broker have to prove it was not at fault?

Yes. Where an obligation is not performed or not properly performed, the debtor must compensate the loss unless it proves that no fault can be attributed to it (Code of Obligations Art. 112).

What standard of care applies?

That of a prudent agent providing similar services (Code of Obligations Art. 506(3)); merchants must also act as prudent businesspersons (Commercial Code Art. 18(2)).

Are clauses limiting a Turkish broker’s liability valid?

An exclusion of liability for gross fault is always void, and for licensed professional services an exclusion even for slight fault, or for the acts of auxiliaries, is void (Code of Obligations Arts. 115 and 116(3)).

Can I claim directly against a Turkish sub-custodian my global custodian appointed?

Where Turkish law governs, the principal may assert against the substitute the rights that its agent has against that substitute (Code of Obligations Art. 507(3)). A tort claim may also be available.

Who is liable for incorrect records at the Central Registry?

The Central Registry Agency and its members, such as brokers and custodian banks, in proportion to their fault (Capital Markets Law Art. 81(5)).

Is a fund custodian liable to unit holders?

Yes, for losses caused by failing to fulfil its custody and control obligations; where it uses other custodians, all are jointly and severally liable (Capital Markets Law Art. 56(2) and (4)).

Is mediation compulsory before suing a Turkish broker?

Yes, for money claims in commercial cases, unless an arbitration agreement applies (Commercial Code Art. 5/A(1); Law No. 6325 Art. 18/A(18)).

How long does mediation take?

Six weeks from the mediator’s appointment, extendable by up to two weeks; limitation is suspended meanwhile (Commercial Code Art. 5/A(2); Law No. 6325 Art. 18/A(15)).

What is the limitation period for a claim against a broker or portfolio manager?

Five years for claims under mandate and commission contracts (Code of Obligations Art. 147(5)); periods cannot be changed by contract (Art. 148).

Is misuse of client assets a crime?

Yes. It is a qualified breach of trust under Capital Markets Law Art. 110(1)(a), with a minimum of three years’ imprisonment.

Can the Capital Markets Board award me compensation?

No. SPK can order remedies, restrict or suspend activities and sanction managers (Capital Markets Law Art. 96), but compensation is claimed before the courts, apart from the investor compensation scheme for failed firms (Arts. 82–86).

Related guides

• Turkey’s 2026 Fund and Market Manipulation Crisis: Legal Guide for Foreign Institutional Investors — the entry point to this series
• MSCI’s Turkey Index Freeze and the Legal Response
• Lease Certificates (Sukuk) in Turkey
• Inflation Accounting in Turkey: TMS 29 and the Tax Books
• Individual Application to Turkey’s Constitutional Court and the ECHR
• Privileged Shares in Turkish Listed Companies
• Enforcing a Money Judgment in Turkey
• Turkey’s Emissions Trading System and Climate Law No. 7552
• Anti-Money Laundering Rules for Foreign Investors in Turkey
• Recovering Investor Losses from Insurers in Turkey
• Service of Documents in Turkish Proceedings
• Voting at Turkish General Meetings from Abroad
• Derivatives in Turkey: VİOP, OTC and Leveraged Trading
• SPK Investigations in Turkey: Powers, Secrecy and Reports
• Short Selling, Margin Trading and Securities Lending in Turkey
• Crypto Assets in Turkey under Law No. 7518
• Arbitration of Investor Disputes in Turkey
• State-Controlled Listed Companies in Turkey
• Taxation of Foreign Institutional Investors in Turkey
• Bank Secrecy, Customer Secrets and Personal Data in Turkey
• Real Estate Investment Trusts in Turkey: Communiqué III-48.1
• Company Liability for Managers and Employees in Turkey
• Real Estate and Venture Capital Funds in Turkey: Valuation and Liability
• Suspects, Evidence and Assets Abroad: International Judicial Cooperation under Law No. 6706
• Clearing and Settlement in Turkey: Takasbank as Central Counterparty
• Turkish Currency Law and Repatriation of Investment Proceeds
• Turkish Book-Entry Securities and the Central Registry (MKK)
• Borsa Istanbul Trading Rules: The Equity Market Directive
• Criminal Code Offences in Turkish Capital Markets Cases
• Investment Services Rules in Turkey: Communiqués III-37.1 and III-39.1
• Public Offerings in Turkey: Prospectus, Price Determination Report, Allocation and Stabilisation
• Turkish Investment Fund Rules: Communiqués III-52.1, III-55.1 and III-56.1
• Market-Disrupting Acts in Turkey: Article 104 and Communiqué VI-104.1
• Financial Reporting Fraud and Audit Failures in Turkish Listed Companies
• Dividends in Turkish Listed Companies
• Mergers, Asset Sales and Exit Rights in Turkish Listed Companies
• Corporate Governance in Turkish Listed Companies
• Share Buy-Backs in Turkey
• Capital Increases and Dilution in Turkish Listed Companies
• Mandatory Tender Offers in Turkey
• Trading Halts, Watchlist Market and Delisting on Borsa Istanbul
• Social Media Manipulation and Unlicensed Investment Advice in Turkey
• Turkish Bond Defaults: Bondholders’ Boards and Enforcement
• Continuous Disclosure in Turkey: Inside Information and Delayed Disclosure
• How a Securities Lawsuit Proceeds in Turkey
• Limitation Periods for Investor Claims in Turkey
• Concealed Profit Transfers and Controlling Shareholder Liability
• When a Turkish Issuer or Broker Becomes Insolvent
• Turkey’s 2026 Fund Liquidation
• Obtaining and Preserving Evidence in Turkey for Securities Claims
• Calculating Damages in Turkish Securities Claims
• Suing in Turkey or Abroad: Jurisdiction and Enforcement
• Joining a Criminal Case in Turkey as a Foreign Investor
• Freezing Assets in Turkey for Investor Claims
• Suing Turkey’s Capital Markets Board (SPK)
• Representing Foreign Institutional Investors in Turkish Capital Markets Disputes