One-line summary: When a MASAK (Turkey’s AML authority) inquiry lands, some institutions over-react and freeze thousands of accounts “pending KYC remediation.” Done badly, this triggers a PR firestorm, customer lawsuits, and regulatory risk. This playbook shows how to use 5549 AML, MASAK guidance, and the tipping-off prohibition to design proportional freezes, clean customer communications, and a legal review queue—so you manage risk without burning the franchise.
Why this matters
A blanket freeze feels safe in the heat of an inquiry—but it blows up cashflow, NPS, and brand trust. For growth-stage fintechs and banks, mass account freezes after MASAK inquiry can snowball into churn, press scrutiny, and litigation (especially if wages, pensions, or small-business working capital are trapped). The better approach is surgical: freeze only where your AML risk model and case files justify it; keep everyone else transacting while you fix gaps.
The legal hooks you must respect
- Law No. 5549 (Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime) is your backbone: CDD/KYC duties, ongoing monitoring, record-keeping, suspicious activity reporting, and cooperation with MASAK.
- MASAK guidance/communiqués set practical expectations for risk-based KYC and STR/SAR processes.
- Tipping-off prohibition: You cannot tell a customer they are under suspicion or that an STR was filed. Communications must reference “regulatory review” or “account information update”—never “suspicious activity report.”
Translation: You are required to mitigate risk quickly, but also to avoid over-freezing and never disclose STR/SAR specifics.
What typically goes wrong (and how to spot it fast)
- Blanket holds based on a vague instruction like “freeze all Tier-3 risk accounts.”
- Weak lineage between each freeze and an actual alert/case file—courts will ask “show your work.”
- KYC drives run like PR campaigns: generic emails, ambiguous deadlines, and call centers without scripts → complaints skyrocket.
- No unfreeze criteria: operations can’t say who gets released today vs next week.
- Tipping-off by accident: “We froze you due to suspicious activity” (don’t).
- Red-tape paralysis: Legal must pre-approve every email; remediation stalls.
Evidence you should have ready before you act
- Case files per account (alerts, matches, unusual patterns, transaction samples).
- Risk model notes (why the score crossed the threshold; variables used; thresholds approved by whom/when).
- KYC/EDD status (what is missing? which document; which data field; when last requested).
- STR/SAR logs (internal; never disclosed externally).
- Decision register (who authorized freeze, timestamp, legal basis, review date).
If you can’t tie a freeze to specific evidence or a policy threshold, you are inviting proportionality challenges later.
A proportional freeze playbook (tiered, time-boxed, reviewable)
Step 1 — Classify accounts by why they are risky
- Tier A: STR-submitted / imminent filing.
Action: Hard freeze (credits allowed, debits blocked), escalate to Legal; 7-day review cycle. - Tier B: High-risk typologies with concrete triggers (e.g., mule patterns, sanctions false-positive cleared? not cleared?).
Action: Partial freeze (daily limits; block outbound international), request targeted documents; 72-hour review. - Tier C: KYC outdated / light anomalies (expired ID; address mismatch).
Action: No freeze or soft constraints (lower limits) + KYC refresh; 7–14 days to cure.
Step 2 — Time-box everything
- Every freeze decision gets an expiry/review date (e.g., 72 hours for B; 7 days for A). System auto-creates tasks.
Step 3 — Define unfreeze criteria upfront
- Examples: “ID verified + adverse media cleared,” “Source of funds obtained for last inbound > TRY X,” “Alert #123 closed by QA.” Publish a one-page matrix the ops team can use without waiting for Legal each time.
Step 4 — Double control and QA
- Compliance analyst proposes; senior reviewer approves; separate QA re-checks 10–20% of actions daily.
Step 5 — Escalation lanes
- Red flag (sanctions hit, law-enforcement order): keep freeze; Legal leads.
- Customer hardship (wages, medical payments): consider controlled payout with supervisor approval.
Customer communications that respect tipping-off (copy-ready)
Initial notice (email/SMS, Tier C – KYC refresh; no tipping-off):
Subject: Action needed to keep your account active
Hello [Name],
As part of a regulatory review, we need to confirm some details on your account. Please upload [ID/back/front + proof of address] in the app by [date]. This helps us keep your account secure and compliant. If you need assistance, call us at [number].
Thank you,
[Institution]
Partial freeze notice (Tier B – measured restrictions):
Subject: Temporary limits on your account
Hello [Name],
We’ve applied temporary limits to certain transactions on your account while we complete a standard compliance review. You can still receive money and make most payments. We’ll update you within 72 hours or sooner once the review is complete.
To speed things up, please upload: [list of documents].
Best,
[Institution]
Hard freeze notice (Tier A – no tipping-off):
Subject: Temporary restriction on your account
Hello [Name],
For compliance reasons, we’ve temporarily restricted some activities on your account while we perform a regulatory review. You can still receive funds. We aim to finish within 7 days and will notify you immediately. If you have urgent needs, please contact [number].
[Institution]
Do not include: “suspicious activity,” “STR,” “MASAK inquiry,” or specific triggers—this risks tipping-off.
Legal review queue (fast lanes, clear rules)
- Queue A (legal-sensitive): STR-related, law-enforcement requests, sanctions. SLA: 24–48h.
- Queue B (documentation): Missing KYC, SoF/SoW checks. SLA: 72h.
- Queue C (false positives): Name matches, benign anomalies. SLA: 24h.
Every queue has: (i) owner, (ii) SLA, (iii) auto-escalation if overdue, (iv) management dashboard (counts, average age, % cleared).
Governance that actually works in a crisis
- Single source of truth: Case management system with immutable audit logs.
- Playbook sign-off: Compliance + Legal approve the tiering and comms templates before the incident.
- Daily stand-up: Compliance, Legal, PR, Ops review counts: new freezes, releases, aged cases, complaints.
- Board brief (1 page): number frozen, % released, customer impact, press status, MASAK liaison status, next-day plan.
- PR alignment: One media line: “We are conducting a regulatory review and contacting a limited number of customers to update their information. Most accounts are not affected. We expect to complete shortly.”
Data you’ll be asked for (build the packet now)
- Population stats: total accounts, affected accounts, tiers, geography.
- Throughput: cases closed per day, average time to unfreeze by tier.
- Quality: % false positives, % escalated to STR.
- Customer remediation: # KYC updates received, completion rate, top failure reasons.
- Risk outcomes: value of transactions blocked vs. confirmed suspicious.
Being able to show proportionality and steady clearance is your best defense—to MASAK, to courts, and in the press.
Common pitfalls—and the fix
- Pitfall: “Freeze everyone with risk score > X.”
Fix: Add secondary triggers (recent alerts, typology match, doc gaps). Pure score is not a freeze reason. - Pitfall: One-size comms.
Fix: Tiered templates, translated where needed; live agent escalation for hardship. - Pitfall: Endless freeze.
Fix: Auto-review dates and explicit unfreeze criteria; management KPIs. - Pitfall: Legal bottleneck.
Fix: Pre-approved matrices; Legal handles only Queue A + exceptions. - Pitfall: Accidental tipping-off.
Fix: Train frontline; scrub words like “suspicious/STR/MASAK” from customer-facing macros.
What investors should ask (dataroom checklist)
- The written playbook (this one, customized) with tiering, SLAs, and templates.
- Evidence of last year’s drills or real events (metrics, lessons learned).
- Model documentation: risk variables, thresholds, override governance.
- Case samples: redacted Tier A/B/C files showing end-to-end reasoning.
- Complaint analytics: volume, resolution times, ombudsman outcomes.
- External counsel memo on tipping-off boundaries and freeze proportionality.
Conclusion
Handled well, mass account freezes after MASAK inquiry become a targeted clean-up, not a brand crisis. Anchor actions in Law 5549 and MASAK guidance, avoid tipping-off, and run a tiered, time-boxed process with clear unfreeze criteria. Pair that with ready-to-send customer templates and a legal review queue, and you’ll protect both regulatory standing and customer trust.
Yanıt yok