While the repercussions of the funding crisis continue, experts are making critical evaluations about the process.
Speaking to Cumhuriyet, Criminal Lawyer Prof. Dr. Murat Volkan Dülger drew attention to the legal dimension of the investigation, saying that the responsibility is not limited to fund managers.
So, which transactions are considered crimes, who can be prosecuted, and how can investors recover their losses?
According to Dülger; The actions of portfolio managers, company managers, related company and account holders, and audit and custody officers can be examined.
However, Dülger emphasized that a person's being a manager, employee, partner or relative of the suspect does not alone lead to criminal liability and said, "Each person's concrete behavior, knowledge and contribution to the crime must be determined."
WHAT CRIMES MAY COME TO THE AGENDA?
If it is determined that artificial prices or transaction volumes are created in fund transactions, "market fraud", if profits are made with information not disclosed to the public, "information abuse", and if investors are fraudulently directed to deposit money, "qualified fraud" are among the crimes that may come to the fore.
Dülger considers "abuse of trust" if fund assets are unlawfully transferred to related parties; He stated that if the proceeds of crime are hidden or taken abroad, the "crime of laundering" may be assessed. Dülger noted that "organizational crimes" may also come to the agenda if a criminal structure that includes continuity and hierarchy is detected, and stated that different prison and judicial fines are envisaged for these crimes.
Three to five years of imprisonment and a judicial fine are foreseen for market fraud, three to 10 years of imprisonment and a judicial fine for qualified fraud, and three to seven years of imprisonment and a judicial fine for laundering. The penalty for founding or managing an organization is five to 10 years in prison.
However, Dülger warned, "It is not right to automatically collect the penalties for all crimes."
Dülger said, "Liability does not disappear by saying that the investor accepted the risk" and made the critical distinction at this point as follows:
"It is not a crime that an investment risk taken under real market conditions results in a loss. On the other hand, the risk accepted by the investor does not include fraud, manipulation or misuse of money."
According to Dülger; The fact that the investor has accepted the risks does not eliminate the liability arising from an illegal transaction.
WILL THE VICTIMS GET THEIR MONEY BACK?
Dülger stated that there is a possibility of getting a refund, but it cannot be said at this stage that everyone will get their full money back. Stating that the real value of the fund assets, the amount to be obtained from liquidation and the assets that can be brought back will be decisive in this, Dülger emphasized that the liquidation payment and the compensation claims that can be filed against those responsible are separate legal remedies.
Dülger advises investors to keep all their documents, especially account statements, receipts, contracts and transaction instructions; He suggested that they check the entitlement records and apply to the CMB with concrete documents, or to the prosecutor's office in case of suspicion of crime.
"They should not only wait for the criminal investigation, but also consider compensation and property protection measures," said Dülger, adding that documents giving up all rights in exchange for partial payment should also be carefully examined.
“INTERIM PAYMENT OF 1 MILLION LIRAS IS NOT A “STATE GUARANTEE”
Dülger also made an important warning about the interim payment of up to 1 million liras, which came to the fore during the fund crisis, and stated that this does not mean that all the losses will be covered.
Stating that the net investment amount to be calculated by MKK will be taken as basis for the investors whose reconciliation has been completed in the relevant funds of Tera, Pusula, Atlas and Hedef Portföy, Dülger stated that if this amount is below 1 million lira, the entire amount will be paid, and if it is more than 1 million lira, there will be an interim payment of at most 1 million lira.
Dülger also emphasized that investment funds purchased from the bank should not be considered within the scope of deposit insurance.
EYES ON CMB AND OTHER AUDIT INSTITUTIONS…
Stating that not only fund managers and companies, but also the audit mechanism should be scrutinized in the fund scandal, Dülger said that if there is a concrete breach of duty and its impact on the loss, the responsibility of the supervisory institutions can also be investigated. Stating that CMB's statement that it observed price movements that cannot be explained by economic reality in the last quarter of 2025 is important, Dülger said, "Which risk was learned when, what investigations were made and whether earlier intervention could have prevented the damage should be investigated."
Stating that depository institutions, independent auditors and other institutions should also be examined in terms of their own obligations, Dülger said that not every lack of supervision will automatically mean a crime, but criminal liability may come to the fore if deliberate breach of duty, concealment of the crime or participation in the crime is detected.
“THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT SAYAN KAYA AND HIS WIFE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED”
Dülger stated that the allegations that Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya and her husband, whose names came to the fore during the fund crisis, earned high profits in a short time from transactions related to Özata Denizcilik and exited before the crisis, should also be investigated, but emphasized that high earnings or timing alone cannot be considered evidence of crime.
Dülger said, "Whether non-public information is used, whether there is participation in manipulative transactions, and the source of the gain should be determined by transaction records."
He stated that leaving party duties alone is neither evidence of crime nor an element that eliminates criminal liability.
DOES THE CLAIM "2.2 BILLION LIRAS WAS RETURNED" ELIMINATE THE PUNISHMENT?
Stating that the claim that Kaya returned approximately 2.2 billion liras has not yet been officially confirmed, Dülger said that even if the return was made, it would not automatically ensure impunity for all crimes. Dülger stated that effective remorse provisions, especially in transaction-based market fraud, depend on certain conditions, and pointed out that the total amount returned, profit and the benefit obtained from the crime are not the same thing.
He stated that legal conclusions cannot be drawn without determining which amount was paid by whom, when and to which account.
“PERCEPTION OF IMPUNITY IS STRENGTHENED”
Stating that the funding crisis has become an important issue not only in terms of economy but also in terms of the sense of justice, Dülger said that applying different speed and scope of action to people facing similar allegations can strengthen the perception of impunity.
"If people who face similar allegations are treated at different speeds and scopes, and if the objective reason for this is not understood, the perception of impunity and political privilege is strengthened," said Dülger, adding that treating people in the same situation differently due to their political connections would not be compatible with the rule of law.
However, he also underlined that the absence of arrest or detention alone is not evidence of privilege.
According to Dülger, the main issue is to collect evidence regardless of political identity, apply the same legal criteria to everyone, and conduct the investigation effectively within legal limits.
