DOLĞUN AKADEMİ | LEGAL RESEARCH
Turkish Citizenship Revocation and Criminal Investigations in 2026: Police Statements, Prosecutors, KYOK, Administrative Lawsuits and Defence Rights
Author: Attorney Murat Can Dolğun – Istanbul Bar Association
Original Publication: October 22, 2026
Legal Fields: Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Turkish Citizenship Law, Administrative Law, Administrative Litigation and Immigration Law.
Read this article in Turkish:
Click here to read the original Turkish version.
Abstract
Criminal investigations concerning Turkish citizenship acquired through investment in 2025 and 2026 have brought renewed attention to the relationship between nationality law, criminal liability and administrative judicial review.
Investigations conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office have involved allegations of sham real estate transactions, inaccurate or fraudulent property valuation reports, artificial foreign-currency transfers, document forgery, fraud and organised criminal activity.
These developments have confronted foreign investors who acquired Turkish citizenship in previous years with three separate legal questions.
The first concerns the investor’s procedural status and possible personal criminal liability. The second concerns whether the original investment genuinely satisfied the statutory requirements for Turkish citizenship. The third concerns the administrative and judicial remedies available if a citizenship cancellation or withdrawal decision is issued.
Although these questions may arise from the same transactions, they require distinct legal analyses.
Being investigated as a criminal suspect does not establish guilt or automatically terminate Turkish citizenship. Equally, a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute does not automatically invalidate a separate administrative decision withdrawing citizenship.
This article examines police questioning, prosecutorial investigations, the right to counsel, interpretation rights, restrictions on access to investigation files, non-prosecution decisions (KYOK), indictments, acquittals, arrest measures, expert reports, administrative litigation and suspension of execution.
The research draws upon legislation, official announcements and published Council of State decisions available up to October 22, 2026. It is applicable to all persons who acquired Turkish citizenship through investment or another exceptional naturalisation procedure, regardless of their national origin.
1. Why Can a Turkish Citizenship-by-Investment File Become the Subject of a Criminal Investigation?
Acquisition of Turkish citizenship through investment is primarily an administrative-law procedure. The applicant must satisfy the statutory conditions, the relevant institution must determine the eligibility of the investment, and the competent authority must issue the naturalisation decision.
However, allegations that the supporting documents were falsified, that the investment amount was not genuinely paid, or that an organised arrangement was established to simulate compliance may also give rise to criminal-law questions.
For example, where a property’s true market value is allegedly below the statutory minimum and an inaccurate appraisal report is knowingly prepared to show a higher value, the dispute may extend beyond a technical disagreement concerning valuation.
Similarly, investigators may examine whether a bank transfer was fabricated, whether funds were returned through intermediary accounts after an apparent payment, or whether a land registry transaction concealed an agreement inconsistent with the apparent sale.
Nevertheless, two separate matters must be distinguished: the failure of a transaction to satisfy citizenship legislation and the intentional commission of a criminal offence by a particular individual.
Under Article 38 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 20 of Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, criminal responsibility is personal.
Therefore, the existence of a criminal investigation concerning a construction company, property developer or appraisal professional does not establish the guilt of every investor who dealt with that person or organisation.
2. Developments in Turkish Citizenship Investigations During 2025–2026
2.1. September 24, 2025: Investigation Into Allegedly Sham Property Transactions
An operation conducted across 19 Turkish provinces in September 2025 concerned allegations that fictitious real estate transactions had facilitated the acquisition of Turkish citizenship by foreign investors.
According to publicly reported investigative statements, the allegations included inflated property values, artificial financial movements and subsequent transfers of properties back to previous owners or related parties.
The investigation raised questions concerning the distinction between a formal property transfer recorded in the land registry and the genuine economic substance of the underlying transaction.
Source: Anadolu Agency, September 24, 2025.
2.2. August 4, 2026: Investigation Concerning 687 Individuals
On August 4, 2026, the Turkish Ministry of Justice announced an investigation coordinated by the Organised Crime Investigation Bureau of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The reported allegations concerned properties of comparatively low value allegedly being represented as qualifying high-value investments through inaccurate appraisal reports.
The Ministry reported detention orders for 90 suspects, the apprehension of 72 suspects and protective measures involving companies and property assets.
It also announced that legal proceedings had been initiated concerning the cancellation of citizenship acquired by 687 individuals.
Source: Turkish Ministry of Justice, August 4, 2026.
Initiating proceedings intended to cancel nationality does not mean that a final individual administrative cancellation decision had already been issued against every affected person.
2.3. September 21, 2026: The Second-Wave Investigation
The second-wave investigation announced on September 21, 2026, concerned the review of property transactions and financial records associated with investment-based citizenship acquisitions.
According to information reported from the Ministry of Interior, the investigation covered 1,070 people, comprising 263 principal investors and 807 family members. Additional processes reportedly concerned 11 persons whose citizenship applications were still pending.
Reports referred to the work of the Istanbul Police Department’s Anti-Migrant Smuggling and Border Gates Branch, expert examinations and analyses by the Financial Crimes Investigation Board, known as MASAK.
On September 25, 2026, Anadolu Agency reported that 33 suspects had been remanded in custody and that other suspects were subject to judicial supervision measures.
Sources:
Anadolu Agency, September 21, 2026;
Anadolu Agency, September 25, 2026.
Arrest, pretrial detention and judicial supervision are criminal procedural measures. They do not constitute final convictions. The presumption of innocence continues to apply to all persons under investigation or prosecution.
For a broader examination, see our research on the official citizenship revocation figures and international coverage in 2026.
3. Criminal Investigations and Administrative Citizenship Proceedings Are Not the Same Legal Process
One of the most significant mistakes in evaluating Turkish citizenship cases is treating criminal investigations and administrative citizenship reviews as if they formed a single legal proceeding.
A criminal investigation seeks to establish whether an offence was committed and, if so, who may be responsible. The public prosecutor, judicial police and competent criminal courts operate within the criminal procedure framework.
Cancellation or withdrawal of citizenship, by contrast, concerns administrative decisions issued by the competent authorities under Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901.
| Issue | Criminal Proceedings | Citizenship Proceedings |
|---|---|---|
| Primary question | Has a crime been committed? | Were the statutory conditions for citizenship fulfilled? |
| Legislation | Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code | Citizenship Law No. 5901 and related regulations |
| Authorities | Public prosecutors and criminal courts | Competent administrative authorities |
| Possible outcomes | KYOK, indictment, acquittal or conviction | Cancellation, withdrawal or other administrative decisions |
| Judicial remedies | Criminal procedural remedies | Administrative judicial review |
The distinction does not prevent the same facts from producing consequences in both legal systems.
For example, knowingly using a forged document to demonstrate a fictitious investment may raise questions of document forgery and, separately, whether the statutory conditions for citizenship were genuinely fulfilled.
Each proceeding, however, has its own legal requirements and issues of proof.
4. Why Does the Distinction Between Suspect, Witness, Complainant and Victim Matter?
4.1. Suspect
Under Article 2 of Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, a suspect is a person under suspicion of committing a criminal offence during the investigation stage.
Being questioned as a suspect means that allegations concerning the person’s conduct are being investigated. It does not establish criminal guilt.
Suspects enjoy procedural rights including information about the allegation, legal representation, the right to remain silent, the opportunity to request the collection of favourable evidence and access to interpretation when legally required.
4.2. Witness
A witness is a person believed to possess information relevant to the investigated events.
The procedural obligations of witnesses differ from those of suspects. However, protections concerning answers that could expose the person or protected relatives to criminal prosecution must also be considered.
Questioning a person as a witness where the circumstances require treatment as a suspect may give rise to procedural concerns affecting defence rights.
4.3. Complainant and Victim
A complainant is a person reporting or complaining about an alleged criminal offence. A victim is a person directly affected by conduct infringing the legal interest protected by the criminal provision.
Some foreign investors involved in citizenship investigations may themselves have been harmed by misleading conduct of property developers, agents or intermediaries.
For example, an investor may have genuinely transferred the qualifying funds but later discovered that a developer or intermediary supplied false information concerning the property or investment documentation.
Whether that investor qualifies as a victim or person harmed by the offence requires examination of the specific allegations.
Even where an interview record describes the investor as a victim, this does not automatically resolve every administrative citizenship question.
4.4. Different Procedural Roles Within One Investigation
An individual may have different procedural positions concerning separate alleged acts within a broader factual investigation.
The person’s precise status should therefore be determined for each allegation rather than inferred solely from the general subject of the case.
5. Which Criminal Offences May Arise in Turkish Citizenship Investigations?
Several offences under Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 have been mentioned in reports concerning the investigations.
Nevertheless, the presence of an offence in an investigation file does not prove that its statutory elements are satisfied in relation to a particular investor.
5.1. Establishing or Participating in a Criminal Organisation – Article 220
Article 220 concerns organisations established for the purpose of committing criminal offences.
The fact that multiple companies participated in property transactions, or that several investors used the same intermediary, does not itself establish the existence of a criminal organisation or membership by an investor.
The organisation’s structure, purpose, continuity, relevant characteristics and the individual’s connection with it must be assessed under the applicable statutory elements.
5.2. Migrant Smuggling – Article 79
Article 79 regulates migrant smuggling.
The involvement of a police unit responsible for investigating migrant smuggling does not mean that every transaction or individual mentioned in the investigation necessarily satisfies the elements of that offence.
Ordinary assistance with citizenship applications should not automatically be equated with the conduct criminalised by Article 79. The actual statutory elements must be established.
5.3. Fraud and Aggravated Fraud – Articles 157 and 158
Fraud involves deceptive conduct and the obtaining of an unlawful benefit under the relevant legal conditions. Aggravated forms of fraud are separately regulated under Article 158.
In citizenship-related investigations, allegedly inaccurate investment values, artificial transactions and misleading documents may lead investigators to consider fraud offences.
However, the alleged deceptive act, its target, the resulting benefit and harm, and the individual’s role must be determined.
The failure to satisfy an administrative investment condition does not automatically constitute aggravated fraud.
5.4. Forgery of Official Documents – Article 204
Article 204 concerns forgery involving official documents.
In citizenship and real estate cases, it is important to determine whether the relevant document legally qualifies as an official document, the nature of the alleged falsification and the knowledge and conduct of the person said to have used it.
5.5. Forgery of Private Documents – Article 207
Allegations concerning private documents require separate consideration of their legal nature, authenticity, use and the person’s conduct.
Not every erroneous private contract or inaccurate commercial communication constitutes criminal forgery.
5.6. False Statements in the Preparation of Official Documents – Article 206
Article 206 addresses certain false statements made to a public official authorised to prepare an official document.
Allegedly misleading declarations during a citizenship application may be examined under this provision where the statutory elements are present.
A document containing an inaccurate result, however, does not automatically establish that the applicant committed this particular offence.
5.7. Multiple Charges Arising from the Same Transaction
A series of transactions may generate allegations involving several criminal provisions.
Whether each offence is legally established, whether the provisions governing concurrence apply and how the individual’s conduct is connected to the alleged acts require separate analysis.
The essential question is not how many offence names appear in the investigation, but which particular criminal act is attributed to the individual and on what evidence.
6. What Are the Suspect’s Rights During Police and Prosecutorial Questioning?
The questioning of a suspect is subject to statutory safeguards. Article 147 of Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 establishes fundamental rules governing the taking of statements and judicial interrogation.
6.1. The Right to Be Informed of the Accusation
The suspect must be informed of the alleged offence.
Knowing only that a general citizenship investigation exists may be insufficient to understand the actual conduct alleged against the individual.
For example, is the investor alleged to have prepared a fraudulent appraisal report, knowingly used such a report, participated in an artificial banking arrangement or merely purchased property from the company being investigated?
The nature of the defence depends on those distinctions.
6.2. The Right to Legal Counsel
Article 149 allows suspects and defendants to receive assistance from one or more defence lawyers during investigation and prosecution, subject to applicable procedural provisions.
The presence of defence counsel during questioning is an important safeguard. Article 150 also governs situations in which appointment of a defence lawyer is mandatory.
Acquiring Turkish citizenship through naturalisation does not diminish the individual’s criminal procedural rights.
6.3. The Right to Remain Silent
Under Article 147, the suspect must be informed of the legal right not to make statements concerning the alleged offence.
Exercising that right does not establish guilt and must not itself be treated as proof of criminal conduct.
The decision whether to provide a statement should be considered with reference to the available evidence and the individual’s particular circumstances.
6.4. The Right to Request Favourable Evidence
A suspect may request the collection of specific evidence capable of supporting the defence.
In citizenship-investment cases, such evidence may include bank statements, SWIFT records, property purchase contracts, title deeds, historical appraisal reports, communications with developers and proof that the consideration was not refunded.
6.5. Accuracy of the Written Statement
Discrepancies between what a person actually says and what appears in the written interview record can have serious consequences.
This is particularly important when statements are interpreted from another language.
Dates, monetary amounts, the sequence of transactions and the meaning of technical explanations should be recorded accurately.
Requests to correct errors or omissions should be raised before the interview record is finalised and signed.
6.6. Police Statements Taken Without Defence Counsel
Article 148(4) provides that a statement obtained by the police in the absence of defence counsel cannot form the basis of a judgment unless subsequently confirmed by the suspect or defendant before a judge or court.
This rule illustrates that the right to counsel is not merely a formality. It has substantive consequences for the admissibility and evaluation of criminal evidence.
7. Interpreter Rights of Foreign Investors Who Do Not Speak Turkish
Effective exercise of defence rights requires a person to understand the accusations and questions addressed to them.
Article 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates interpretation rights in the circumstances prescribed by law.
Speaking English, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Persian or another language does not create any legal disadvantage. The relevant question is whether the person can understand and participate effectively in the proceedings.
7.1. Incorrect Translation of Legal and Financial Terminology
Citizenship investigations may involve technical expressions such as genuine payment, repayment, sham transaction, property appraisal, certificate of conformity and forged document.
An inaccurate interpretation may materially change the meaning of the person’s statement.
For example, “I did not determine the property’s value” is different from “I did not know the property’s value.”
Likewise, “The seller did not refund my payment” is not equivalent to “I do not know the seller’s banking transactions.”
7.2. Challenging an Incorrect Interpretation
Where the individual believes a statement has been inaccurately translated, the concern should be raised during questioning and, where appropriate, recorded in the official minutes.
Ordinary conversational ability in a foreign language should not automatically be equated with the ability to understand complex legal and financial questions in that language.
8. Can a Lawyer Examine the Investigation File? What Is a Restriction Order?
One recurring problem in citizenship investigations is the existence of confidentiality rules or a judicial restriction on inspection of the investigation file.
8.1. Confidentiality of Criminal Investigations
Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs confidentiality during the investigation phase.
However, general investigative confidentiality and a specific restriction on defence counsel’s file-inspection rights are separate legal matters.
8.2. Article 153 and File Inspection
Article 153 regulates the defence lawyer’s entitlement to examine investigation records and obtain copies of documents.
Under specified statutory conditions and procedures, access to certain materials may be restricted.
The existence of a restriction order does not eliminate every defence right or prevent counsel from undertaking all legal work.
Documents excluded from the restriction and other statutory defence safeguards must be evaluated separately.
8.3. Investigation Files Not Visible Through UYAP
The absence of a file from an individual’s accessible UYAP or e-Devlet interface does not conclusively establish that no criminal investigation exists.
Access may depend on the investigation’s status, the person’s procedural capacity, confidentiality rules and technical access permissions.
8.4. Representation and Authorisation
The ability to make an initial legal enquiry, formally represent an individual in an investigation and obtain copies of confidential documents are different matters.
Appropriate authorisation and procedural status are important. Nevertheless, the appointment of defence counsel in criminal proceedings must be distinguished from the formal representation requirements applicable to an administrative citizenship file.
9. Arrest, Police Custody, Pretrial Detention and Judicial Supervision
Foreign investors who become concerned about citizenship-related criminal investigations often ask whether they may be arrested upon entering Türkiye.
However, the existence of an investigation does not automatically result in arrest, police custody or pretrial detention.
9.1. Summons for Questioning
Under Article 145 and related provisions, a person may be summoned to give a statement.
A summons and an arrest warrant are different procedural measures.
9.2. Arrest and Apprehension
Measures involving the apprehension of an individual require the relevant statutory conditions.
The appearance of a person’s name in a criminal investigation does not by itself establish that an arrest warrant has been issued.
9.3. Police Custody
Police custody is a temporary measure that may follow apprehension under the conditions prescribed by law.
The person concerned is entitled to applicable procedural safeguards, including access to counsel and legally required notifications.
9.4. Pretrial Detention
Under Article 100, pretrial detention requires consideration of concrete evidence indicating strong suspicion, statutory grounds for detention and proportionality.
Detention is a preventive criminal procedural measure, not a criminal sentence.
9.5. Judicial Supervision
Article 109 regulates judicial supervision as an alternative to detention in the circumstances prescribed by law.
Depending on the specific order, such measures may include restrictions on leaving the country, reporting obligations or requirements not to leave one’s residence.
Accordingly, the absence of pretrial detention does not necessarily mean that no travel restrictions exist.
9.6. Assessing Border-Control Risks
Before travelling to Türkiye, the individual’s current citizenship status, valid travel documents, any judicial protective measures and applicable immigration rules should be examined separately.
An ongoing investigation does not establish that the person will inevitably be detained at the border. However, an existing arrest warrant or another applicable judicial measure may have significant consequences for travel.
10. How Are Bank Records, Title Deeds, Property Valuations and MASAK Reports Evaluated?
One central issue in citizenship-by-investment investigations is whether the investment appearing in official documents corresponds to a genuine economic transaction.
10.1. Bank Transfers
Bank receipts, SWIFT messages, account statements, transfer instructions and foreign-exchange transaction records may provide important evidence that a qualifying investment was actually made.
Nevertheless, a single receipt may not fully explain the economic nature of the payment.
Investigators may examine whether funds transferred to the seller were subsequently returned to the investor, transferred to related parties or circulated through additional accounts.
10.2. Land Registry and Sale Documents
Registration of a property transfer is an important legal fact.
However, investigators may separately examine whether the parties reached an undisclosed arrangement inconsistent with the apparent sale or whether the transaction was genuine in economic substance.
10.3. Valuation Reports
A real estate appraisal is a significant technical document when assessing the investment threshold applicable to property-based citizenship.
Yet comparing a historic valuation with current property prices is not necessarily sufficient.
The relevant examination should address the investment date, the property’s physical and legal characteristics at that time, comparable transactions, the project’s development stage and the market conditions then prevailing.
10.4. MASAK Financial Analyses
The Financial Crimes Investigation Board may analyse banking transactions, financial patterns and relationships between accounts.
However, identification of a suspicious financial transaction does not itself conclusively establish that a particular person committed a crime or that every related payment was fictitious.
Financial findings should be assessed together with other evidence and the specific elements of the alleged offence.
10.5. Digital Evidence
Emails, messaging records, draft contracts, payment instructions and electronic files may be relevant.
Nevertheless, the source, integrity, method of collection and context of electronic evidence must be considered.
An isolated screenshot, for example, may fail to show the full conversation or the circumstances in which a message was exchanged.
11. How Can Expert Reports Be Examined or Challenged?
Expert evidence is particularly important in citizenship investigations involving property valuation and financial records.
11.1. The Scope and Methodology of the Expert Report
Evaluation should address not only the expert’s conclusion but also the methodology employed.
Does the report determine the historical value of an individual apartment, the average value of an entire parcel, the current market value or another technical measure?
These distinctions may materially affect whether a historic investment satisfied the relevant legal threshold.
11.2. Independent Expert Opinions
Article 67(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code permits scientific opinions from specialists regarding matters relevant to the investigation or prosecution.
Depending on the circumstances, an investor may obtain independent professional assessments from banking specialists, financial analysts, property valuation experts or other qualified professionals.
However, a privately commissioned expert opinion and a report prepared by a court-appointed or prosecution-appointed expert do not have identical procedural status.
11.3. Historical Value Versus Current Market Value
Where property was acquired in 2022, a valuation conducted in 2026 must clearly identify the relevant valuation date.
A determination of the property’s current market value does not, by itself, establish whether the investment satisfied the statutory requirements in 2022.
Historical valuation should be distinguished from the assessment of the property’s present value.
11.4. Preservation of Evidence and Expert Assessment
Articles 400 and following of Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 govern preservation of evidence under specific civil procedural conditions.
An expert examination within a criminal investigation and a separate civil proceeding for preservation of evidence are not the same legal procedure.
Depending on the issues to be proved, both may be relevant for different purposes.
The selection of an appropriate mechanism depends on the legal nature of the dispute and the evidence requiring preservation.
For further examination, see Can a Genuine Investor Lose Turkish Citizenship? Historical Valuation, Banking Evidence and Judicial Protection.
12. What Is KYOK? When Can a Prosecutor Decide Not to Prosecute?
KYOK is the commonly used Turkish abbreviation for kovuşturmaya yer olmadığına dair karar, meaning a decision that there is no ground for criminal prosecution.
Under Article 172 of Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, the public prosecutor issues a non-prosecution decision if the investigation does not produce evidence sufficient to justify bringing a public prosecution or if prosecution is legally impossible.
12.1. Insufficient Evidence to Establish the Required Suspicion
One purpose of an investigation is to determine whether the evidence establishes sufficient suspicion to bring a criminal case.
For example, where there is insufficient evidence that an investor participated in preparing a fraudulent appraisal or knowingly used a forged document, that evidentiary deficiency may be significant to the prosecutorial decision.
However, it would be inappropriate to guarantee KYOK merely because one or two particular documents support the investor’s account.
12.2. Legal Impossibility of Prosecution
Article 172 also addresses situations in which prosecution is not legally possible.
Accordingly, not every KYOK decision necessarily amounts to a conclusive factual finding that the alleged conduct never occurred. The actual reasons given by the prosecutor must be examined.
12.3. KYOK Is Not an Acquittal
KYOK is a prosecutorial decision issued during the investigation stage.
It is legally distinct from an acquittal delivered by a criminal court following judicial proceedings.
12.4. Objections to a Non-Prosecution Decision
Article 173 provides a specific objection mechanism for a person harmed by the alleged offence, subject to the applicable statutory conditions.
As a general rule, the person entitled to object may apply to the competent criminal judgeship of peace within two weeks following notification of the decision, subject to statutory exceptions and any applicable special rules.
This is a remedy available to eligible persons harmed by the offence, not an objection mechanism automatically exercised by the suspect.
12.5. New Evidence Following KYOK
Article 172(2) regulates the conditions governing subsequent prosecution concerning the same act, including new evidence and the applicable judicial authorisation requirements.
Consequently, the legal effects of subsequently discovered evidence must be assessed under the statutory framework.
13. Does a KYOK Decision Prevent the Cancellation or Withdrawal of Turkish Citizenship?
This is one of the most frequently misunderstood issues in citizenship law.
A non-prosecution decision does not automatically prevent an administrative authority from examining the legality of a previous citizenship acquisition decision.
The criminal-law question of whether a person committed a particular offence differs from the administrative-law question of whether the objective statutory conditions for citizenship were fulfilled.
13.1. Scenario One: Genuine Investment and No Criminal Liability Established
An investor may have genuinely paid the required purchase price, transferred the funds through the banking system, retained ownership of the property and received no refund.
The investigation may fail to establish sufficient evidence that the investor knowingly participated in forgery, artificial transactions or other alleged crimes.
In that situation, KYOK is an important procedural outcome concerning personal criminal liability.
Its reasoning and supporting findings may also be relevant to an administrative citizenship dispute.
Nevertheless, compliance with the objective statutory requirements for citizenship must still be assessed.
13.2. Scenario Two: No Crime Established, but the Investment Requirement Was Not Fulfilled
An investor may receive KYOK because the evidence does not sufficiently establish knowing participation in criminal conduct.
However, the administration may separately contend that the investment did not satisfy the required legal amount or another objective condition at the date of acquisition.
The termination of criminal proceedings does not automatically prevent an administrative assessment under Article 40 of Law No. 5901.
13.3. Scenario Three: The Prosecutor’s Findings Contradict the Administrative Grounds
Evidence examined in criminal proceedings may demonstrate that an important factual allegation relied upon by the administration was incorrect.
Where the reasoning of a non-prosecution decision directly conflicts with the factual premise of an administrative withdrawal decision, that contradiction may be significant in administrative litigation.
The administrative court must nevertheless reach its determination on the basis of the applicable legal provisions, the contested administrative act and the evidentiary record before it.
13.4. Does KYOK Automatically Restore Citizenship?
No.
Where an administrative citizenship cancellation or withdrawal decision has already been issued, it remains necessary to consider the appropriate procedures for its withdrawal, amendment or judicial annulment.
KYOK may form part of the evidence supporting those proceedings. It is not itself an administrative court judgment cancelling the nationality decision.
14. What Happens If the Prosecutor Files an Indictment?
Under Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the evidence obtained during the investigation establishes sufficient suspicion for public prosecution, the public prosecutor prepares an indictment.
The indictment is submitted to the competent criminal court. The prosecution stage begins following acceptance of the indictment in accordance with the applicable procedure.
14.1. An Indictment Is Not Proof of Guilt
An indictment is the formal document through which the prosecutor submits criminal allegations for judicial examination.
Its acceptance does not constitute a conviction. The court must examine the evidence and defence during the proceedings.
14.2. Distinguishing Criminal Allegations
An indictment alleging document forgery or fraud does not, by itself, settle the different question of whether the investment objectively met the nationality requirements.
Each alleged offence must be examined according to its own statutory elements and the defendant’s individual conduct.
14.3. Must the Criminal Trial End Before Citizenship Can Be Withdrawn?
Article 40 of Law No. 5901 does not generally make a final criminal conviction a mandatory prerequisite for the withdrawal of a citizenship decision granted without the necessary statutory conditions.
Consequently, the competent administration may be required to examine the original citizenship conditions separately from the outcome of the criminal prosecution.
Nevertheless, the sufficiency, accuracy and legality of the facts relied upon by the administration remain subject to judicial review.
15. How Does a Criminal Acquittal Affect an Administrative Citizenship Case?
An acquittal is a judgment delivered by a criminal court in accordance with criminal procedure.
Not all acquittals rest on the same legal reasoning. Article 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for acquittal in circumstances that may concern the absence of a criminal offence, the fact that the defendant did not commit the act or insufficient proof of criminal guilt, among other statutory grounds.
15.1. An Acquittal Does Not Automatically Annul Administrative Withdrawal
If the administration has already issued a citizenship withdrawal decision, a criminal acquittal does not automatically extinguish that separate administrative act.
However, the criminal court’s findings regarding material facts may be significant where the administration relied on allegations involving the same conduct.
15.2. The Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence is protected under Article 38 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Administrative or public statements that categorically treat a person as criminally guilty without a final conviction may, depending on their wording and circumstances, raise separate concerns under this principle.
Nevertheless, an administrative assessment of objective citizenship conditions does not necessarily amount to a criminal finding of guilt.
16. Cancellation and Withdrawal Under Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901
Articles 31 and 40 are of particular importance when allegations arising from criminal investigations are also examined in nationality proceedings.
16.1. Article 31: False Declarations and Concealment of Material Facts
Article 31 concerns cancellation of a citizenship acquisition decision where the acquisition resulted from false declarations by the individual or concealment of material circumstances relevant to the original decision.
The analysis must determine which declaration was allegedly false, what material fact was concealed and how that conduct affected the acquisition of Turkish citizenship.
A valuation report prepared by an independent professional and subsequently found to be inaccurate must be distinguished from an investor knowingly using a report that they understand to be fraudulent.
16.2. Article 40: Decisions Granted Without the Required Legal Conditions
Article 40 provides for the withdrawal of decisions concerning citizenship acquisition or loss where the required legal conditions were absent or the decision was issued in duplicate.
The essential question is whether the necessary conditions existed at the time the original nationality decision was made.
Therefore, the absence of proven criminal liability does not, in every case, suffice to establish that citizenship cannot be withdrawn under Article 40.
Conversely, the administration must support a withdrawal decision with legally relevant and adequately established facts demonstrating that the original statutory requirements were not met.
16.3. Different Temporal Consequences
Under Article 32, a cancellation decision takes effect from the date of that decision and also applies to spouses and children who acquired Turkish citizenship dependently through the affected individual.
For withdrawal, Article 66 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Turkish Citizenship Law provides that the withdrawn decision becomes ineffective from the date of the original decision.
The difference may affect family relationships, nationality acquired through birth, historical transactions and other legal statuses.
For a detailed examination, see our earlier research on cancellation and withdrawal of Turkish citizenship acquired through investment.
17. What Do the Council of State’s 2026 Decisions Show About Criminal and Administrative Law?
17.1. Council of State, 10th Chamber, E.2024/3835, K.2026/324, February 4, 2026
This case concerned withdrawal of citizenship previously acquired through exceptional naturalisation, with the administration relying on national-security and public-order considerations.
The Council of State emphasised the need for concrete, sufficient and serious factual grounds supporting a decision to withdraw citizenship.
The court also considered the distinction between circumstances existing at the date of naturalisation and subsequent events unrelated to the original statutory conditions.
In light of the circumstances in the relevant file, the court annulled the withdrawal decision.
Legal significance: Administrative authority to withdraw citizenship does not eliminate the need to establish an adequate factual and legal basis for the measure.
Read the Council of State Decision E.2024/3835, K.2026/324.
17.2. Council of State, 10th Chamber, E.2024/405, K.2026/361, February 5, 2026
This case concerned an individual who acquired Turkish citizenship through property investment.
The relevant authorities determined that documents concerning the foreign-exchange purchase transactions had been inaccurately prepared, and the investment certificate of conformity was subsequently cancelled.
The Council of State examined whether the statutory requirements for acquiring citizenship through investment had actually been fulfilled.
The absence of a separate legal challenge to the certificate’s cancellation was also significant to the assessment.
The court dismissed the action challenging the withdrawal of citizenship.
Legal significance: The objective legal conditions of the investment may remain decisive in administrative citizenship proceedings independently of questions concerning the investor’s personal criminal liability.
Read the Council of State Decision E.2024/405, K.2026/361.
17.3. Comparative Legal Assessment
These decisions do not establish contradictory legal principles. They demonstrate the application of the nationality framework to different factual circumstances.
Both concern the existence of the legal conditions required at the time of the original citizenship acquisition.
In one case, the factual grounds for withdrawal were considered inadequate. In another, the court accepted that the necessary investment conditions had not been established as fulfilled in the circumstances.
Accordingly, allegations originating in a criminal investigation must be supported by legally relevant facts concerning the citizenship acquisition before they can justify the applicable administrative measure.
The finality and subsequent appellate history of each decision must be checked in any individual proceeding.
18. Administrative Litigation Against Turkish Citizenship Cancellation or Withdrawal
18.1. The Competent Court
The court with jurisdiction depends on which authority issued the administrative act being challenged.
Under Article 24 of Council of State Law No. 2575, the Council of State acts as a court of first instance in annulment proceedings challenging Presidential decisions.
Different administrative acts, such as cancellation of an investment certificate by another authority, may require proceedings before a different competent administrative court.
18.2. Filing Deadlines
Under Article 7 of Administrative Judicial Procedure Law No. 2577, the general judicial filing period before the Council of State and administrative courts is 60 days unless a different statutory period applies.
The applicable starting date must be evaluated with reference to the administrative act, notification requirements and the circumstances of the particular case.
For individuals living abroad, previously completed notifications to authorised legal representatives may be particularly important.
18.3. Administrative Applications
A qualifying administrative application submitted in accordance with Article 11 may affect the running of the judicial filing period.
However, not every enquiry, request for a file copy or application for information automatically suspends the deadline.
18.4. Suspension of Execution
Under Article 27, filing an administrative annulment action does not automatically suspend execution of the contested decision.
A suspension-of-execution request requires the court to assess the cumulative legal conditions, including manifest unlawfulness and damage that would be difficult or impossible to remedy.
Consequences affecting passports, residence, family life, professional activity and business management may be relevant to that assessment.
Nevertheless, such consequences do not guarantee that interim relief will be granted.
18.5. Use of Criminal Evidence in Administrative Litigation
Lawfully obtained expert reports, banking analyses, interview records and other evidence from criminal proceedings may be relevant in administrative litigation under the applicable procedural rules.
Where criminal evidence contradicts a material allegation relied upon by the administration, identifying and explaining that inconsistency may be important.
However, restrictions arising from investigation confidentiality, personal-data protection and rules concerning the lawful acquisition of evidence must be respected.
19. How Should Criminal and Administrative Citizenship Proceedings Be Coordinated?
An investor may face criminal proceedings and administrative review arising from the same property transaction.
Handling those processes without consideration of their factual overlap may create risks of inconsistent explanations, incomplete evidence and missed procedural deadlines.
However, coherent representation does not mean mechanically submitting the same statements in every proceeding. Each legal process has distinct questions, procedural safeguards and evidentiary requirements.
19.1. Establish the Current Official Status
The existence of a criminal investigation, the competent prosecution office, the individual’s procedural capacity and any questioning or protective measures should be established to the extent legally possible.
Separately, the existing citizenship status, investment conformity documents and any adverse administrative decisions must be examined.
19.2. Prepare a Chronology of the Investment
The relevant dates should be organised chronologically, including contract execution, banking transactions, title deed transfer, appraisal, certificate of conformity, citizenship application, naturalisation and subsequent administrative or criminal measures.
19.3. Identify Individual Conduct
The analysis must distinguish acts performed personally by the investor from documents prepared by third parties and representations made by intermediaries.
Personal conduct is central to criminal liability, while administrative law additionally requires consideration of the objective legal conditions of the citizenship acquisition.
19.4. Preserve Documents and Financial Evidence
Historical bank statements, SWIFT records, old valuation reports, title deed documents, correspondence and contracts may become difficult to retrieve several years after a transaction.
Lawful collection and preservation of original documents, transaction histories and relevant digital records are therefore important.
19.5. Distinguish Technical Findings from Criminal Intent
The historical value of a property is a technical valuation question.
Whether a particular investor knowingly participated in criminal forgery or fraud is a separate legal question.
An expert report may be important evidence, but does not automatically establish the investor’s intention or all the required elements of a criminal offence.
19.6. Protect Independent Administrative Deadlines
Awaiting the conclusion of a criminal investigation does not automatically suspend the filing period for an administrative lawsuit challenging a citizenship decision.
Where an individual decision has already been issued, the available administrative applications and judicial deadlines require independent attention.
20. Frequently Asked Questions About Turkish Citizenship and Criminal Investigations
Does a criminal investigation mean my Turkish citizenship has been cancelled?
No. A criminal investigation and an individual administrative decision terminating citizenship are different legal matters.
I have been summoned to the police. Does an arrest warrant exist?
A summons does not automatically establish the existence of an arrest warrant. Any applicable judicial measures require separate verification.
Can I have a lawyer present during questioning?
Yes. Suspects are entitled to the assistance of defence counsel under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, including Articles 149 and 150.
I do not speak Turkish. Can I request an interpreter?
Interpretation assistance is available under the applicable legal conditions. Article 202 governs relevant interpreter rights.
Does a file-access restriction mean that my lawyer cannot obtain any information?
No. The scope of the restriction and the applicable statutory exceptions must be evaluated separately.
Will KYOK guarantee that I retain Turkish citizenship?
No. KYOK concerns criminal prosecution, whereas compliance with the objective legal requirements for nationality requires a separate administrative assessment.
Can a KYOK decision support my citizenship case?
Yes, potentially. Its factual findings may be relevant where they concern allegations relied upon by the administration.
Will an acquittal automatically reverse a citizenship withdrawal?
No. Administrative withdrawal must be addressed through the appropriate administrative or judicial mechanisms.
I did not prepare the appraisal report. Can I still face criminal liability?
Criminal liability depends on the individual’s conduct and the statutory elements of the alleged offence. A third party’s conduct cannot automatically be attributed to the investor.
I genuinely paid for the property. Is that enough?
Genuine payment is important evidence, but the property, investment amount, applicable historical rules and other statutory conditions must also be assessed.
Can I bring an administrative case while the criminal investigation is ongoing?
Where an administrative act exists and the legal conditions for judicial review are satisfied, completion of the criminal investigation is not necessarily required.
Does filing a citizenship lawsuit automatically suspend the administrative decision?
No. A separate suspension-of-execution decision may be necessary under Article 27 of Administrative Judicial Procedure Law No. 2577.
Is every purchaser from an investigated developer considered a suspect?
No. A criminal investigation concerning a developer does not establish that every purchaser has the same procedural status.
Does living abroad stop a Turkish criminal investigation?
No. Residence outside Türkiye does not automatically terminate an investigation. The procedures for taking statements and other measures depend on the applicable legal framework.
Can legal preparation begin before any citizenship withdrawal decision is issued?
Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible to verify official status, preserve documents, examine investment compliance and prepare relevant legal or technical submissions.
21. Conclusion: Criminal Liability, Administrative Legality and Citizenship Status Require Separate Examination
The citizenship investigations conducted in 2025 and 2026 demonstrate the complex consequences that allegations concerning investment transactions may produce under Turkish criminal and administrative law.
Claims involving fraudulent property valuation reports, sham sales, artificial currency transfers, document forgery and fraud require serious legal investigation.
Nevertheless, personal criminal liability and fulfilment of the objective statutory requirements for citizenship are separate matters.
Criminal responsibility is personal. Alleged unlawful conduct by a developer, appraiser, company or intermediary does not automatically establish that every investor dealing with that person participated in a criminal offence.
Conversely, a decision not to prosecute or the absence of a criminal conviction does not itself prove that all investment requirements were satisfied at the date of naturalisation.
The distinction between Articles 31 and 40 of Law No. 5901 is central. Article 31 addresses cancellation where citizenship resulted from false declarations or concealment of material facts attributable to the individual. Article 40 addresses withdrawal of decisions issued without the required statutory conditions or as duplicates.
These legal mechanisms have distinct conditions, consequences and forms of judicial review.
The Council of State’s published decisions in 2026 also demonstrate that citizenship withdrawal requires legally relevant and adequately established factual grounds. Where the underlying statutory conditions were not fulfilled, withdrawal may be found lawful; where those conditions are not properly established, the administrative act may be annulled.
For an investor affected by a criminal investigation, the appropriate starting point is to determine the nature of the allegations and procedural status, reconstruct the genuine economic transaction, examine the citizenship file, identify any existing adverse administrative decision and preserve the relevant statutory filing deadlines.
The central legal principle is that personal criminal responsibility and administrative review of objective nationality requirements cannot be substituted for one another. Effective legal protection requires these questions to be considered together, but under their respective statutory standards.
23. Legislation, Case Law and References
A. Constitutional and Statutory Sources
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, particularly Articles 36, 38, 66 and 125. Constitutional Court – Official Text.
- Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901, particularly Articles 12, 31, 32, 40 and 41. Official Legislation.
- Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, particularly Articles 2, 67, 100, 109, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 157, 170, 172, 173, 202 and 223. Official Legislation.
- Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, particularly Articles 20, 79, 157, 158, 204, 206, 207 and 220. Official Legislation.
- Administrative Judicial Procedure Law No. 2577, particularly Articles 7, 8, 11 and 27. Published Statutory Text.
- Council of State Law No. 2575, particularly Article 24.
- Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, particularly Article 400 and following provisions.
- Regulation on the Implementation of the Turkish Citizenship Law, particularly Articles 20 and 66.
- European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(2).
B. Council of State Decisions
- Council of State, 10th Chamber, February 4, 2026, E.2024/3835, K.2026/324. Full Decision.
- Council of State, 10th Chamber, February 5, 2026, E.2024/405, K.2026/361. Full Decision.
- Council of State, 10th Chamber, December 30, 2025, E.2025/6295, K.2025/7133. Notification and time-bar issues. Full Decision.
C. Official Announcements and News Reporting
- Turkish Ministry of Justice, August 4, 2026. Official Announcement Concerning 687 Individuals.
- Anadolu Agency, September 24, 2025. Investigation Into Sham Real Estate Transactions.
- Anadolu Agency, September 21, 2026. Second-Wave Citizenship Investigation.
- Anadolu Agency, September 25, 2026. Pretrial Detention and Judicial Supervision Measures.
Methodological Note: Statements attributed to investigative or administrative authorities are presented as official allegations or reported findings, not automatically as final judicial determinations. Each criminal allegation and citizenship decision requires individual consideration. Statutory amendments and subsequent appellate decisions must be checked when applying this research to a particular case.
