TURKEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Caghan Tansel, TANSEL
electronic signatures” as having the same legal effect as handwritten signatures, and certain transactions subject to official form or special procedures cannot be completed by secure e-signature at all. For this reason, market practice should pair the smart contract code with a natural-language agreement, clear offer- and-acceptance mechanics, party identification, gov- erning law and dispute-resolution clauses, and, where needed, secure electronic signatures or other legally recognised formalities. From an evidentiary perspec- tive, secure electronically signed data is treated as documentary evidence, while blockchain records that do not meet that standard may still be submitted as evidence but are likely to require technical explanation or expert review. 1.1.5 Industry and Trade Bodies Türkiye does not have a blockchain-specific self-regu- latory organisation with delegated regulatory authority comparable to the CMB, but there are relevant indus- try bodies. The most important practical develop- ment is that CASPs are being brought into the Turkish Capital Markets Association (TCMA/TSPB) structure: following the 2026 amendments to the TCMA stat- ute, licensed CASPs must become TCMA members within three months after obtaining CMB operating permission, and a dedicated professional committee for CASPs is to be formed. The TCMA’s broader role includes setting professional rules, preventing unfair competition, supporting market development, evalu- ating complaints and assisting with dispute resolution among members and investors. 1.2 Crypto-Assets 1.2.1 Property Considerations Property Status and Enforcement of Rights Turkish law expressly defines crypto-assets as intan- gible assets that may represent value or rights and that are created, stored and distributed electronically through distributed-ledger or similar technology. This gives crypto-assets a recognised legal category under the Capital Markets Law, but it does not auto- matically make them “property” in the same civil-law sense as tangible movables or immovables. Accord- ingly, enforcement is not identical to enforcement over tangible property: courts and enforcement offices will generally need to rely on contractual rights, platform/ custody records, control of private keys, blockchain
evidence, unjust enrichment or tort principles, and, where assets are held with a CASP, directions to that provider. The Capital Markets Law also protects cus- tomer assets at CASPs from the CASP’s own credi- tors, which is important for insolvency and enforce- ment analysis. Transfer of Ownership There is no single statutory “title transfer” rule for all crypto-assets in Türkiye. In practice, the trans- fer analysis depends on the asset type and holding model. For self-custodied crypto-assets, transfer is usually evidenced by the relevant blockchain trans- action and the recipient’s resulting control over the asset or private keys, but the underlying legal basis – sale, exchange, gift, settlement or other contract – remains important. Where crypto-assets are held through a platform (ie, CEX) or custodian, ownership or entitlement will also be determined by the customer agreement, the platform’s internal records, custody records and the CMB rules on trading, transfer and custody. If the token represents another legal right, such as a capital-markets instrument, fund interest, receivable or contractual claim, the rules governing that underlying right may also affect transfer. Collateral Arrangements Crypto-assets can be commercially attractive as collateral, but Turkish law does not yet provide a bespoke, fully settled perfection and enforcement regime for crypto-asset security interests. Tradition- al pledge rules were not designed for decentralised intangible assets, and possession, control, priority, valuation, volatility and forced-sale mechanics may create uncertainty. The safer structures are usu- ally contractual: custody-account blocking, control arrangements with a licensed custodian or platform, security assignment of contractual claims, escrow- type arrangements, margining and close-out provi- sions. However, these structures should be carefully reviewed for regulatory, insolvency, consumer/inves- tor protection, AML and CMB custody compliance issues. In particular, the statutory segregation of cus- tomer crypto-assets at service providers limits the ability of third-party creditors of the service provider to reach those assets, but it does not by itself create a standardised collateral regime for customers’ own financing transactions.
658 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook