Use of Bank Accounts (IBAN) by Third Parties and Qualified Fraud Charges (TPC Art. 158/1-f)

Allowing third parties to use personal bank accounts (IBANs) frequently results in aggravated cyber fraud prosecutions under TPC Article 158/1-f carrying 3 to 10 years imprisonment.

This article examines defense strategies demonstrating lack of criminal intent (TPC Art. 21), evidentiary analysis of communications, and asset-freezing resolution with financial intelligence authorities (MASAK).

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: How can a MASAK bank freeze on personal salary accounts be lifted? Under Law No. 5549 Art. 19/A, administrative freezes apply for up to 7 business days pending judicial seizure orders under CMK Art. 128. Freezing entire subsistence wages violates proportionality; petitions to the Criminal Peace Judgeship documenting salary slips can lift or narrow the block to the disputed sum.

Question: What should be done if electronic money accounts (e.g. Papara) were opened fraudulently in my name? Victims must query e-Government records, notify the institution to freeze the account, and demand IP, cell tower (HTS), and device IMEI logs from the prosecutor to establish that transactions originated from a completely separate perpetrator.

Question: How should evidence be preserved if a family member was defrauded via AI voice cloning? Victims must preserve complete phone call logs, audio messages, WhatsApp communications, recipient IBAN details, and wire slips. Forensic audio analysis will be conducted to confirm synthetic synthesis.

Question: If an account holder transferred money for commission but was not paid, are they considered a victim? In criminal law, providing an account for illicit transfers creates co-perpetrator or accessory liability under Article 158/1-f; non-receipt of the promised commission does not negate criminal responsibility.