The Crime of Laundering Assets Derived from Crime

November 19, 2025

Legal Definition of the Crime

The crime of laundering assets derived from crime is regulated under Article 282 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) under the heading “Crimes Against the Judiciary.” The relevant legal provision states:

TPC Article 282

  1. A person who, with the aim of transferring abroad the assets derived from a crime that requires a minimum imprisonment of six months, or of concealing their illicit origin or giving the impression that they were lawfully obtained, subjects such assets to various transactions, shall be punished with imprisonment from three to seven years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days.
  2. A person who, without participating in the commission of the crime described in the first paragraph, knowingly purchases, accepts, possesses, or uses the assets constituting the subject matter of that crime, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to five years.
  3. If this crime is committed by a public official or a person of a certain profession during the performance of their duties, the imprisonment sentence shall be increased by one-half.
  4. If this crime is committed within the framework of the activities of an organization established for the purpose of committing crimes, the penalty shall be doubled.
  5. Legal entities shall be subject to security measures specific to them due to the commission of this crime.
  6. A person who, before the initiation of the prosecution, ensures the seizure of the assets constituting the crime or facilitates their seizure by notifying the competent authorities, shall not be punished for the crime defined in this article.

This regulation aims to prevent assets derived from crime from being introduced into the economic system, thereby ensuring the reliability and integrity of the economic system.

Elements of the Crime

Under the scope of Article 282 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC), the commission of the crime depends on the existence of certain conditions. These conditions are:

1- Predicate Offense: The predicate offense is the crime that generates illicit proceeds. The first condition for the commission of the crime under TPC Article 282 is that the assets subject to laundering must have been obtained through the commission of a predicate offense.

2-Minimum Penalty Requirement: Another necessary condition for the commission of the crime is that the predicate offense must be a crime punishable by a minimum imprisonment of six months or more. Indeed, the law explicitly refers to a “crime requiring six months or more of imprisonment.” Therefore, assets obtained from crimes that only require a judicial fine or crimes with a minimum imprisonment of less than six months do not constitute the subject matter of this offense.

3- Effect of Statute of Limitations or Immunities: The expiration of the statute of limitations for the predicate offense, or reasons such as personal immunity preventing punishment, do not eliminate the offender’s liability under TPC Article 282. Even if the offender is not punished or cannot be prosecuted for the predicate offense, they may still be punished for the laundering offense.

Elements of the Offense

When evaluated together with its objective and subjective elements, the crime of laundering assets derived from crime consists of the following fundamental components:

  1. Act (Conduct Element): Article 282/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) states:
    “A person who, with the aim of transferring abroad the assets derived from a crime that requires a minimum imprisonment of six months, or of concealing their illicit origin or giving the impression that they were lawfully obtained, subjects such assets to various transactions, shall be punished with imprisonment from three to seven years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days.”

In terms of the commission of the crime, two alternative acts are envisaged. The occurrence of either of these alternative acts is sufficient for the crime to be considered committed.

  • Transferring assets derived from a crime punishable by a minimum of six months’ imprisonment abroad: The first alternative act provided by law is the transfer of assets derived from a crime abroad. The act of transferring abroad can be carried out physically or by using methods such as the banking system.
  • Subjecting assets derived from a crime punishable by a minimum of six months’ imprisonment to various transactions with the aim of concealing their illicit origin or creating the impression that they were lawfully obtained: The second alternative act provided by law is the act of subjecting such assets to various transactions. Any action that conceals the illicit origin of assets derived from a crime or gives the impression that they were obtained lawfully can be considered as a “various transaction.” The crime is therefore an offense with alternative acts.

Article 282/2 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) also states:
“A person who, without participating in the commission of the offense described in the first paragraph, knowingly purchases, accepts, possesses, or uses the assets constituting the subject matter of that offense, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to five years.”
It is indicated that the acts of “purchasing, accepting, possessing, or using” may give rise to the commission of the offense.

2-Offender: No special condition is required regarding the offender under TPC Article 282. Anyone can be the perpetrator of the crime.

3-Victim: In relation to this offense, the victim is society.

4-Legally Protected Value: The crime of laundering assets derived from crime is regulated under the heading “Crimes Against the Judiciary,” and the legally protected value of this offense is the integrity, stability, and reliability of the financial system.

5-Mental Element: The offense is intentional, and it cannot be committed negligently under the law.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

The crime regulated under Article 282 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) is arranged in such a way that, in certain circumstances, it warrants a heavier penalty. According to TPC Article 282/3, if the offense is committed by a public official or a person of a certain profession during the performance of their duties, the penalty shall be increased by one-half. According to TPC Article 283/4, if the offense is committed within the framework of the activities of an organization established for the purpose of committing crimes, the penalty shall be doubled.

Effective remorse is an institution in substantive criminal law that allows for a reduction of the penalty if the offender repents for the act committed and remedies the damage caused by the crime. According to TPC Article 282/6, an offender can benefit from the provisions of effective remorse if they tell the truth. The relevant legal provision also states that a person who ensures the seizure of the assets constituting the crime or facilitates their seizure by notifying the competent authorities before the prosecution begins shall not be punished for the crime defined in this article.

Complaint Period, Statute of Limitations, and Competent Court

The offense regulated under Article 282 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) is not subject to a complaint and is investigated ex officio by the public prosecutor’s office. Although there is no complaint period for the investigation of the crime, the statute of limitations for prosecution is 15 years. The competent court is the Courts of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi).

Judicial Fine, Postponement of Pronouncement, and Suspension

According to Article 282/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC), a person who, with the aim of transferring abroad the assets derived from a crime punishable by a minimum of six months’ imprisonment, or of concealing their illicit origin or giving the impression that they were lawfully obtained, subjects such assets to various transactions, shall be punished with imprisonment from three to seven years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days.

Considering the minimum and maximum limits of the penalty, it is possible to postpone the pronouncement of the verdict and to suspend the sentence. However, it is not possible to convert the imprisonment sentence into a judicial fine.

Relevant Court Decisions

“…In the examination of appeals against the conviction for the crime of laundering assets derived from crime:

  1. In order for the crime of laundering assets derived from crime to occur, the offender must subject the assets obtained from a crime punishable by a minimum of six months’ imprisonment to various transactions, either by transferring them abroad or by concealing their illicit origin or creating the impression that they were lawfully obtained. Considering this, the MASAK evaluation report dated 27.05.2015 within the file determined that the assets in question, derived from the predicate offense of abuse of trust in services, were subjected to transactions to conceal their illicit origin and create the impression of legitimacy. It was noted that the defendant purchased a car in 2013 and transferred it to his father-in-law R.D., and that the defendant’s father opened a gym in 2011 and purchased an apartment in 2012, which “likely” represented the defendant transferring assets derived from the crime to these persons, thus distancing the criminal proceeds from their illegal source and subjecting them to laundering. Accordingly, merely purchasing a car with the allegedly criminal proceeds and keeping it solely in the defendant’s possession would not constitute the alleged crime, although confiscation could be ordered if conditions are met. To ensure that the acquisition of movable and immovable assets by the mentioned persons with allegedly criminal proceeds is determined in a manner free from doubt and open to Supreme Court review, a detailed investigation of all income-generating activities of these individuals, before and after the transaction dates, should have been conducted, and a detailed report prepared by an expert panel to evaluate the defendant’s legal status accordingly. The failure to do so and the establishment of a verdict based on incomplete investigation is improper.
  2. Essentially, the material element of the crime of laundering assets derived from crime, which is a specific form of concealing or destroying evidence, consists of assets obtained from the predicate offense. The legal element involves giving an appearance of legitimacy to economic values obtained through or as a result of crime and introducing them into the economic system, while simultaneously modifying or concealing evidence and protecting the criminal, ensuring the effective continuation of the fight against crime. The victim of this crime is each member of society entitled to live in a secure environment. The victim of the predicate offense, having suffered direct harm, may exercise the right to appeal under Article 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the prosecution stage, but does not have such rights regarding the crime of laundering assets derived from crime.

Considering these explanations, in the concrete case, representatives of institutions and companies who are not direct victims of the crime of laundering assets derived from crime do not have the right to participate in the trial. Despite this, the participation decision does not grant the right to appeal the verdict. The first-instance court sentenced the defendant to 2 years and 11 months of imprisonment and 416 days of judicial fine for the crime of laundering assets derived from crime. The Regional Court of Justice annulled this decision and sentenced the defendant to 3 years and 4 months of imprisonment and 500 days of judicial fine. However, since there was no appeal against this, a retrial resulted in the defendant being convicted of the alleged crime again. The verdict was issued without considering the acquired rights stipulated in Article 283/1 of Law No. 5271, which constitutes a violation of the law. The defendant’s appeal is therefore upheld, and for this reason, the verdict is REVERSED pursuant to Article 302/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271. The case file is REFERRED to the Samsun Regional Court of Justice, 8th Criminal Chamber, through the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by unanimous decision dated 19.12.2024.”

(Supreme Court, 3rd Criminal Chamber, 2024/4155 E., 2024/19482 K., 19.12.2024)

“…Although acquittal decisions were issued for the defendants on the grounds that the elements of the crime were not established, an examination of the documents and information contained in the file revealed that evaluations regarding acts that could constitute a predicate offense should have been investigated and discussed in a manner allowing for judicial review. Within this context, although criminal proceedings were initiated against the defendants for fraud and conviction decisions were rendered, the Supreme Court annulled these decisions due to the statute of limitations upon appeal. Likewise, with respect to defendant …, the proceedings for violations of the Tax Procedure Law, and with respect to defendant …, the proceedings for forgery of official documents, were dismissed due to the statute of limitations.

It is noted that no relative procedural assessment of these offenses was conducted, the evidence in the investigation and prosecution files was not reviewed, and the crime dates were not clearly determined. Consequently, the causal link regarding whether these offenses constituted predicate crimes for the offense of laundering assets derived from crime was not discussed. Moreover, regarding defendant …, who had a conviction related to the murder of … on 28.11.1995, and the subsequent robbery offense committed against …, who held commercial notes after the death, beginning approximately 7–8 months after the murder and continuing until an indeterminate date, a trial was conducted, and a conviction was rendered. However, it is understood that the file was not properly examined to determine the precise crime dates and to evaluate the evidence concerning the predicate offense, and that only a statement regarding the existence of a recidivist case and the decision of the 9th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court was provided.

In light of all these explanations, the Constitutional Court noted that in the reasoning of its violation decision, it could not be understood from the rationale whether the predicate offenses forming the basis of the crime of laundering assets derived from crime were committed, whether investigation/prosecution was conducted in this regard, or whether concrete findings had been made to clearly distinguish between undeclared money and income derived from the crime. Therefore, all deficiencies should have been addressed, the evidence should have been evaluated together, and the legal status of the defendants should have been determined accordingly. The issuance of acquittal decisions based on incomplete examination and insufficient reasoning is therefore deemed unlawful…”

(Supreme Court, 4th Criminal Chamber, 2023/7721 E., 2024/12804 K., 17.10.2024)

“…Considering the formation, allegations, court acceptance, and the entire file content; for the crime of laundering assets derived from crime to occur, the perpetrator must subject the assets derived from a crime requiring a minimum of six months or more of imprisonment to various transactions, either to transfer them abroad or to conceal their illicit origin or to give the impression that they were obtained legally, and at the moment these alternative acts occur, the perpetrator must knowingly act with the intent that the assets were obtained from a crime. However, although the file acknowledges that the defendant subjected the proceeds or assets obtained from the predicate theft offense to laundering transactions, the specific types of transactions were not indicated in a manner that eliminates doubt, and no findings or evaluations were made in this regard. The conviction was thus established solely based on an abstract presumption that the crime of laundering assets derived from crime was committed.

2- In the concrete case, the confiscation of 60,000 TL obtained from the theft offense should have been evaluated by the court where the defendant was tried for theft, in accordance with Articles 54–55 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). If no confiscation decision was issued in this regard, it should have been possible to issue such a decision at any time. Instead, a confiscation decision was made on items such as vehicles and land shares, which were not practically enforceable, necessitating annulment…”

(Supreme Court, 3rd Criminal Chamber, 2023/13443 E., 2024/1696 K., 07.02.2024)

“…For the crime of laundering assets derived from crime to occur, the perpetrator must subject assets derived from a crime requiring a minimum of six months or more of imprisonment to various transactions, either to transfer them abroad, to conceal their illicit origin, or to create the impression that they were obtained legally. In the present case, a public prosecution was filed against the defendants for the predicate offense of “drug trafficking,” and it was determined that the last transaction date constituting the crime of laundering assets derived from that offense was 18.06.2003 for …, 05.11.2001 for …, 21.07.2003 for …, 08.06.2001 for …, and 05.08.2004 for …. According to the date of the alleged offense, the crime was regulated under Article 7 of Law No. 4208 on the Prevention of Money Laundering, and Article 8 of the same law set the statute of limitations for prosecution at 10 years. Following an amendment made by Article 16 of Law No. 5020, which entered into force on 26.12.2003, the statute of limitations was extended to 15 years. With the enactment of Article 282 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 on 01.06.2005 concerning the crime of laundering assets derived from crime, and the subsequent entry into force of Article 26 of Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Proceeds of Crime on 18.10.2006, Articles 7 and 8 of Law No. 4208 were repealed.

In the original version of Article 282 of the TPC, before being amended by Article 5 of Law No. 5918, which entered into force on 26.06.2009, the maximum penalty was set at five years. Pursuant to TPC Article 66/1, the ordinary statute of limitations was eight years, and the extraordinary statute of limitations set in Article 67 of the TPC was twelve years. Considering all these legal provisions individually and collectively, it is understood that, regarding the statute of limitations, the original version of Article 282 before the 26.06.2009 amendment was in favor of the defendants. However, the failure to take into account that the statute of limitations for the case under Articles 66/1-e and 67 of the Law occurred between the interrogation dates and the decision date for defendants …, …, …, and …, and between the indictment date and the interrogation date for defendant … constitutes a violation of the law. Therefore, the judgment is ANNULLED…”

(Supreme Court, 16th Criminal Chamber, 2016/7152 E., 2017/3829 K., 17.04.2017)

Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Yasemin ERAK