TURKEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Caghan Tansel, TANSEL
operations are contemplated: for example, where the structure of a network requires crypto-assets to be locked, platforms may conduct lock-up and return- in-kind transactions at the customer’s request under the customer framework agreement. However, many common DeFi products would raise serious regulatory issues: listed crypto-assets on plat- forms may not be traded with leverage, made sub- ject to derivatives, margin lending, short sale or lend- ing/borrowing transactions, and customer portfolio management by the platform is prohibited. DeFi use would therefore need to be assessed case by case, particularly for custody/control of private keys, smart- contract risk, counterparty anonymity, sanctions and Travel Rule compliance, asset eligibility, customer disclosures, and whether the arrangement amounts to an unauthorised lending, derivative, portfolio-man- agement or payment product. 5.2 DeFi Structures Common DeFi Structures Türkiye does not have a recognised decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) legal form or a dedi- cated DeFi wrapper. A genuinely decentralised pro- tocol accessed by users on their own initiative may not have a Turkish corporate vehicle at all, but any identifiable operator, front-end provider, treasury man- ager, developer company or marketing entity creates a potential regulatory and liability touchpoint. In practice, where a Turkish legal wrapper is used, pro- jects generally look to ordinary Turkish structures such as a joint-stock company, limited liability company, co-operative, association or foundation depending on whether the activity is commercial, governance- oriented, community-based or non-profit. However, a structure that provides regulated crypto-asset ser- vices must generally use the CMB-authorised crypto- asset service provider model; under the CMB frame- work, crypto-asset platforms and custody providers are regulated entities, and platform activity includes crypto-asset purchase and sale, initial sale or distribu- tion, exchange, transfer and related custody opera- tions. Turkish law also does not give DAOs separate legal personality; if participants organise around a common
economic purpose without using a recognised legal form, ordinary partnership analysis and associated liability risks may arise under general obligations law. Set-Up Requirements There is no simple “DeFi set-up” registration in Tür- kiye. If the structure is only developing open-source software or conducting non-regulated research, ordi- nary company, tax, employment, IP and data-protec- tion requirements may be sufficient. If, however, the structure provides Turkish-facing crypto-asset servic- es, it must be assessed under the CMB CASP regime. A regulated CASP must generally be established as a Turkish joint-stock company, with registered shares issued for cash, fully paid-up capital, transparent ownership, fit-and-proper founders and shareholders, CMB establishment and operating permissions, inter- nal control, internal audit, risk management, informa- tion systems, custody and record-keeping arrange- ments. For 2026, the minimum establishment capital is TRY250 million for crypto-asset platforms and TRY630 million for crypto-asset custody institutions, follow- ing the CMB’s annual revaluation of the monetary thresholds. These substance, capital, custody, AML and governance requirements are difficult to recon- cile with a fully decentralised DAO, so Türkiye-facing DeFi structures usually need either to remain genu- inely non-custodial and non-solicited or to operate through a compliant regulated entity. 5.3 Liability In Türkiye, courts and regulators have not yet devel- oped a DeFi-specific liability doctrine, and there do not appear to be any major published enforcement actions specifically concerning harm caused by DeFi. Liability is therefore assessed under general legal prin- ciples and the new crypto-asset framework. Where a protocol is genuinely decentralised and accessed by users on their own initiative, identifying a liable person may be difficult. However, if there is an identifiable front-end operator, developer company, management team, marketer, custodian or other intermediary tar- geting Türkiye or controlling user assets, that person may be exposed to contractual liability, tort liability, unjust enrichment, consumer or investor protection claims, capital markets rules or AML obligations. Arti-
668 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook