What changes for individuals who allow their bank account or IBAN to be used, with the penalty reduction added to TCK 158 as part of the 12th Judicial Package? The roadmap you need to follow, regardless of the stage of your case.

Important — Update Note The regulation explained in this article was accepted and enacted into law by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on July 16, 2026. However, as of the date this article was prepared, the law has not yet been published in the Official Gazette. Passing through parliament and coming into force are not the same stage; final provisions and effective dates will be clarified with the definitive text to be published in the Official Gazette. For your specific case, always refer to the current text and individual legal assessment.

Brief Answer: Individuals who allow another person to use their bank account, IBAN, card, or account access information; but who did not devise, manage, or are not part of a fraud scheme, have long been tried for the crime of aggravated fraud (TCK 158/1-f) with penalties of the same severity as the principal offender. The new paragraph added to TCK 158 with the 12th Judicial Package stipulates a fifty percent reduction in the penalty for individuals whose contribution is limited solely to providing their account/payment instrument. Since the regulation is a law in favor, it will also affect ongoing and finalized cases; adaptation proceedings will come into question for finalized penalties. This is not an amnesty; whether the conditions are met is evaluated separately for each case.

1. “IBAN Victim” Situation How Does it Arise?

In recent years, one of the case types that has most occupied the agenda of prosecutors’ offices and criminal courts has been situations referred to as  “IBAN victims”  in public. The scenario often begins in a similar way:

People who encounter offers like  “rent your account, earn commission”, “pass your money through your account, take your percentage” on social media or messaging applications, open their accounts for others to use in the hope of extra income. Students and those seeking additional income are particularly targeted.

In some cases, individuals believe they are receiving a payment from their own  virtual betting  or online game; however, the money transferred to their account is actually money obtained from defrauding someone else.

The money enters the account within a short time, then is withdrawn or transferred to other accounts. What remains is the account holder’s name and account activity.

When the defrauded person files a complaint, the first name that authorities tracking the money reach is often  not the actual scammer, but the person who allowed their account to be used.  This is because those who set up and manage the organization conceal themselves, while the name visible in the system is the account holder.

2. Why Are They Facing Such Serious Charges?

In practice, these types of acts were long considered under “qualified fraud by using information systems, banks or credit institutions as a tool,” as regulated in Article  158/1-f  of the Turkish Penal Code. The penalty for this crime is quite severe, and such cases were heard in high criminal courts.

The problem was this: even if the person who allowed their account to be used had not devised the fraud scheme, had not personally deceived the victim, and often did not know the source of the money from the outset; in practice, they could face an accusation of the same severity as the main perpetrator. This situation led to serious criticism in terms of fairness and gave rise to the concept of “IBAN victims”.

3. What Does the 12th Judicial Package Bring?

With the 12th Judicial Package, which was adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on July 16, 2026, a new paragraph has been added to Article 158 of the Turkish Penal Code. The basic logic of the introduced regulation is as follows:

If a person’s contribution to the crime of fraud or aggravated fraud is limited solely to providing their bank account, IBAN, bank or credit card, crypto asset account, or the necessary information enabling the use of these accounts to another person, the penalty to be imposed shall be reduced by half.

There are a few important aspects of this regulation that need to be emphasized:

a) Not a new independent crime, but a reduction clause

During the legislative process, proposals to regulate allowing an account to be used as a separate crime (e.g., like TPC 158/A) were also brought up; however, this was not the adopted model. The adopted solution is to add a special penalty reduction to the existing crime of fraud.

b) Condition for reduction: contribution limited solely to providing an account/instrument

If the person was not content with this and actively participated in the establishment and management of the fraud scheme, the sharing of criminal proceeds, or systematically collected others’ accounts, or acted within a continuous and hierarchical structure, they are no longer considered to have “merely provided their account” and cannot benefit from this reduction. Therefore, the core of the defense lies in demonstrating with evidence that the contribution truly remained limited.

c) Favorable law applies retrospectively

In criminal law, the law in favor of the defendant is applied retroactively. Therefore, when the regulation comes into force, it will affect not only new cases but also ongoing and even finalized cases:

In ongoing cases, the court will be able to directly apply the reduction.

For cases at the appeal or Supreme Court stage, the file may be returned to its court for a new decision.

In the case of finalized sentences, courts will be able to re-determine the penalty by conducting a sentence adaptation hearing.

4. Redress of Harm and Effective Remorse

The reduction mechanism gains even more importance when considered in conjunction with the redress of harm to the victim. According to the provisions on effective remorse regulated in Article 168 of the Turkish Penal Code, an additional reduction in sentence is possible if the victim’s harm is redressed.

In the accepted text, a transitional provision has been foreseen, granting individuals who previously could not benefit from this opportunity during the trial phase and whose sentences have become final and entered enforcement, the chance to benefit from this reduction retroactively if they fully compensate the victim’s damages within six months from the court’s warning.

AttentionAccording to the accepted text, the enforcement of the sentence does not stop until the damage is compensated. The six-month period is not a period that automatically postpones enforcement; enforcement continues unless the damage is fully covered. Therefore, acting early and with a plan in compensating the damage is of great importance.

5. Step-by-Step Roadmap

Step 1 — Do not give a statement in panic, first understand the file

In such cases, what determines the fate of the defense is how the initial statement was given. A rushed and contradictory statement given without legal assistance can lead to a situation that is very difficult to correct later. Evaluating the specific situation of the file with a lawyer before giving a statement is the most correct start.

Step 2 — Support the defense of “I only provided my account” with evidence

The reduction provided by the new regulation depends precisely on the situation where the contribution is limited solely to providing an account. Therefore, at the core of the defense is demonstrating that the person was not part of the organization. The following evidence is important:

Bank account movements and the timing of money inflow and outflow

Messaging and communication records (what was said to the person, what was promised)

Data showing that the person did not accumulate other accounts and was not part of an ongoing structure

Records showing that the benefit obtained was limited and one-time

In files where virtual betting or game revenue turns out to be fraudulent money, it is important to demonstrate that the person did not know this from the beginning and to reveal their behavior after learning the source of the money.

Step 3 — Evaluate blocks (seizure / suspension) placed on accounts separately

The first concrete problem encountered in these files is usually the blocks placed on accounts. However, not every block is subject to the same legal regime; its basis, duration, and appeal route differ. Correctly identifying which decision the block is based on also determines which authority (bank, prosecutor’s office, or criminal judgeship of peace) to apply to for its removal. This technical distinction often leads to loss of rights because it is frequently overlooked.

Step 4 — Plan for early compensation for damages

Compensating the victim’s damages both opens the door for an effective remorse reduction and positively affects the course of the case. However, its financial planning and timing must be done correctly. Especially in cases at the enforcement stage, the six-month period running from the warning should not be missed.

6. What Should Be Done According to the Case Stage?

7. Important Reminder: This Is Not an “Amnesty”

On social media, this regulation is sometimes presented as “amnesty for IBAN victims.” This is not correct. What has been introduced is not a general amnesty or a collective sentence reduction, but rather a sentence reduction mechanism provided for individuals who meet specific conditions. Whether you can benefit from the reduction depends on the specific characteristics of your case, the nature of your contribution, and the evidence. Each case should be evaluated individually.

8. Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

Qualified fraud cases originating from IBAN/account usage require expertise in both technical aspects (bank transactions, IP and communication records, blocking regimes) and procedural aspects (statement strategy, objection to interim injunctions, adaptation proceedings, timing of effective remorse). A statement given at the wrong time or a missed deadline can lead to irrecoverable consequences.

2M Hukuk Law Office, in the fields of criminal law and cybercrimes; provides legal support primarily in Istanbul’s Anatolian Side, including Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, as well as throughout Gebze, Darıca, Çayırova, and Kocaeli. If there is an IBAN-related investigation or lawsuit against you, we can jointly determine the appropriate strategy for the stage of your case.

To evaluate your case, you can contact our team of lawyers operating in Tuzla.

9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Has the IBAN victims regulation come into force?

The regulation was adopted and enacted by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) General Assembly on July 16, 2026. However, as of the date this content was prepared, the law had not yet been published in the Official Gazette. Passing through parliament and entering into force are not the same stage; the effective dates and final provisions will be clarified with the text to be published in the Official Gazette.

I only allowed my account to be used, how much reduction can I get?

If your contribution is limited to merely providing a bank account, IBAN, card, crypto asset account, or the mandatory information enabling the use of these accounts, the penalty to be imposed will be reduced by half. Furthermore, if you compensate the victim’s damage, an additional reduction under effective repentance (Turkish Penal Code Article 168) may also be considered.

My penalty has become final, can I benefit from this regulation?

Yes, since the regulation is a law in favor (of the accused), it also covers finalized cases. In this case, the court may re-determine the penalty through an adaptation trial. Furthermore, within the scope of the transitional regulation, if you compensate the damage within 6 months from the court’s warning, you can retroactively benefit from the effective repentance reduction.

Am I considered part of the organization just because I provided my account?

No; if your contribution was limited to merely providing an account or payment instrument, you can benefit from the reduction. However, if it involves establishing/managing the scheme, sharing income, collecting accounts of others, or being part of a continuous-hierarchical structure, you will not be considered as “merely having provided your account”. This distinction is established with evidence.

Is this regulation an amnesty?

No. It is not a general amnesty or a mass sentence reduction; it is a penalty reduction mechanism foreseen for individuals who meet certain conditions. Each case is evaluated separately according to its specific characteristics.