1) What “Seizing a Digital Account” Really Means in Turkish Law
Clients often describe the goal as “seize the Instagram account,” “freeze the marketplace store,” or “take control of the debtor’s channel.” In Turkish enforcement practice, however, the account itself is rarely the collectible object. The collectible object is usually one of these:
- Money payable to the debtor (payouts, balances, proceeds, settlement payments)
- A receivable the debtor has against the platform or a payment intermediary
- A contractual right with economic value (a right to receive periodic payments, a right to withdraw funds, a right to refunds)
- An intangible right linked to the business (trademark/domain/IP-driven revenues), which may be attachable and saleable separately
So “digital account attachment” is best understood as intercepting economic value that flows through or arises from the account, rather than physically capturing login control.
This framing matters because it determines:
- which enforcement mechanism you use (mostly third-party garnishment/attachment),
- who you serve (platform entity, local representative, payment processor, bank),
- what you ask for (freeze and redirect payable amounts, not “give me the password”),
- how you avoid privacy and unlawful-access risks.
2) The Asset Map: What Parts of a Platform Account Can Be Attached
A platform account is a bundle. Before you draft anything, classify the value into attachable layers.
2.1. The access layer (username, password, control)
This is the least practical to “attach.” It is commonly protected by:
- platform terms (non-transferability),
- personal data concerns,
- potential criminal liability if someone attempts unauthorized access,
- operational impossibility (platforms don’t hand over passwords).
Practical rule: Do not build your strategy around taking over the account. Build it around the money and receivables.
2.2. The payout layer (money “inside” the platform)
This includes:
- wallet balances,
- pending payouts,
- marketplace settlement balances,
- ad revenue earned but not yet paid,
- subscription revenue shares,
- affiliate commissions.
If the platform (or a payment partner) owes the debtor money, that is the cleanest target.
2.3. The receivable layer (claims against third parties)
A creator’s income might be owed not only by the platform but by:
- advertisers,
- agencies,
- brand partners,
- distribution networks,
- affiliate programs,
- app-store operators.
If you can identify a Turkey-reachable counterparty, you can attach the receivable where it is owed.
2.4. The business/IP layer (brand, domain, licensing)
Sometimes the account’s “value” is actually brand value:
- trademark rights,
- domain names,
- licensing agreements,
- royalty streams.
In those cases, enforcement can target the registrable right or the royalty receivable, depending on what is realistic.
3) The Core Tool: Attaching Receivables via İİK Article 89 (Haciz İhbarnamesi)
When the debtor has a receivable or right held by a third party, Turkish enforcement practice typically relies on İİK Article 89—a structured notice system to bind the third party, stop payment to the debtor, and channel the value into the enforcement file.
3.1. Why İİK 89 fits digital platforms
Foreign platforms do not “hold” a physical asset in Turkey, but they often:
- owe payouts,
- hold balances,
- run settlement systems,
- process refunds/chargebacks,
- have contractual duties to pay.
That payment obligation is a classic third-party receivable scenario.
3.2. What you should aim to attach under İİK 89
You want to describe the target as:
- “all amounts payable to the debtor arising from the platform account,”
- “settlement proceeds, reserve balances, and any future amounts that become payable,”
- “withdrawable wallet balances and payout receivables.”
The more precisely you identify the receivable category, the more likely compliance becomes—especially with foreign compliance teams that insist on clarity.
3.3. The compliance psychology: foreign platforms respond to “payables,” not “accounts”
Platform legal departments are often trained to reject:
- broad data requests,
- vague demands to freeze “the account,”
- anything that looks like forcing them to disclose personal content.
But they are more receptive to:
- a clear request to stop paying and to declare payable sums,
- a legally grounded garnishment notice that focuses on money.
4) Picking the Right Target: Platform vs. Payment Chain vs. Bank Endpoint
Most “foreign platform” cases are not won by arguing with the platform. They are won by attaching the reachable payment endpoint.
4.1. Identify the payment chain
Ask: How does the debtor get paid?
- Direct bank transfer from platform to debtor’s Turkish bank?
- Payment through a global processor (paymaster entity)?
- Payout through a local payment institution?
- Funds first land in an e-money wallet, then transfer to bank?
- Marketplace uses rolling reserves and periodic settlement?
Once you map the chain, you can choose the best target for an İİK 89 notice.
4.2. The “closest to Turkey” rule
If there are multiple nodes, start with the one that is:
- clearly identifiable (legal entity name),
- clearly serviceable in Turkey,
- most likely to comply,
- legally the payor or the holder of funds.
In practice, this is frequently:
- the debtor’s Turkish bank receiving payouts,
- a Turkey-based payment institution,
- a local corporate entity of the platform (if it exists),
- a Turkey-appointed representative contact (as a communication bridge).
4.3. Why banks are often the best choke point
Even if the platform is abroad and slow to respond, the money often ends up in Turkey. Attaching the bank account is straightforward, fast, and operationally effective. You may still pursue platform-side attachment, but the bank endpoint is the “surest” move when you have proof of incoming payments.
5) Evidence Strategy: Proving the Account Belongs to the Debtor
Digital enforcement fails most often because the creditor cannot prove that “this handle = this debtor.” Foreign platforms will not confirm ownership casually, and they may refuse to disclose private data.
You need a layered evidence approach.
5.1. Public attribution package (OSINT, but disciplined)
Collect:
- profile URL and handle,
- screenshots showing name/brand and outward identifiers,
- bio sections with email/phone links (if public),
- cross-linked websites (domain owned by debtor),
- public business registration references (if posted),
- posts indicating monetization (public “paid partnership,” store links, etc.).
Your goal is not to prove every detail; your goal is to create a credible identity linkage that an enforcement office or court can rely on.
5.2. Payment trace evidence (the strongest proof)
Nothing beats payment traces:
- bank statements showing platform-related transfers,
- invoice records, withholding/tax documents,
- marketplace settlement reports provided by the debtor in another dispute,
- correspondence with advertisers/agencies about payouts.
If you can show that “Platform X paid the debtor,” you can target the same path again.
5.3. Evidence preservation (Delil Tespiti logic)
Where you anticipate deletion or rebranding (handle changes), preserve evidence early. In practice, preserving the “state of the page” and publicly visible linkages can be decisive later.
6) Interim Measures: Preventing Digital Dissipation
Digital funds move quickly. A debtor can withdraw platform funds instantly, change payout accounts, or route payments through new intermediaries.
6.1. Provisional attachment (İhtiyati haciz) when money will vanish
If your claim and circumstances justify it, provisional attachment can be a powerful tool to freeze value before final collection.
6.2. Interim injunction (İhtiyati tedbir) for rights and operational control
Where your dispute is rights-based (e.g., unfair competition, IP misuse, domain hijacking), interim injunction can be used to stop certain actions, preserve status quo, or prevent transfer of related rights.
6.3. The digital risk argument
In interim requests, explain the “digital speed” risk:
- immediate withdrawal capability,
- easy rerouting of payout destination,
- deletion/alteration of identifiers,
- cross-border complexity that increases collection risk.
Courts respond better when you translate “digital” into concrete urgency.
7) Special Platform Categories and the Best Enforcement Angle
7.1. Marketplaces (seller accounts)
What to attach: settlement proceeds, reserve balances, refunds payable to seller.
Who to target: marketplace payor entity, local logistics/payment partner, or debtor’s bank.
Common complication: marketplaces use “rolling reserves.” You should attach not only “current balance” but also “all future amounts that become payable.”
7.2. Ad networks and creator monetization
What to attach: ad revenue receivables and scheduled payouts.
Who to target: the paymaster entity and/or bank receiving transfers.
Evidence tip: creator dashboards often show “payout ID” or “payment method last four digits.” If visible through documents you obtain lawfully, preserve those identifiers.
7.3. App store developer accounts
What to attach: monthly developer proceeds and any withheld amounts payable.
Who to target: payor entity, payment processor, or bank endpoint.
7.4. Subscription platforms and membership revenue
What to attach: net revenue share payable after platform fees, chargeback windows, and reserve rules.
Drafting tip: describe the attached sums as “all amounts payable after deductions under platform rules” to avoid the platform’s “not presently payable” rejection.
7.5. Affiliate commissions
What to attach: commission receivables.
Who to target: affiliate program operator, advertiser network, payment intermediary.
Affiliate structures can be fragmented; often the best move is to attach the bank endpoint once you identify the incoming payer name.
8) Crypto Exchanges and Fintech Wallets: Enforcement Realities
Crypto and fintech are attractive targets but come with timing and compliance friction.
8.1. The practical target is “withdrawal rights” and “account balances”
If a debtor holds balances on an exchange or wallet provider, the enforceable economic object is:
- the debtor’s claim to withdraw or transfer that balance,
- any fiat balances held in custody,
- proceeds from liquidation (if conversion occurs).
8.2. Expect delays and compliance checks
Even with valid orders, providers may:
- require strict entity identification,
- insist on translation and formal service,
- delay execution due to AML checks,
- ask for court-level orders instead of administrative correspondence.
Plan for this in client expectations and in parallel enforcement moves (e.g., bank attachment, other assets).
8.3. Don’t oversell “crypto seizure”
In practice, crypto enforcement succeeds when:
- you can identify the provider and the debtor’s verified account,
- you can serve a legally recognized order to the correct legal entity,
- you move faster than withdrawals.
Otherwise, crypto becomes an intelligence lead rather than a guaranteed recovery channel.
9) Cross-Border Service and the “Foreign Platform” Barrier
When the platform has no Turkey presence and no reachable payment node, the case becomes a service problem and a recognition problem.
9.1. Service is not a formality; it is your future enforceability
If you plan to bind a foreign entity, service must be done in a way that will withstand later challenges. Improper service can make your entire effort pointless, especially if you later litigate against the third party for noncompliance.
9.2. “Representative” vs. “real payor” distinction
Even where a platform has a Turkey-facing contact channel, the payor entity might be abroad. Treat the representative route as:
- a way to locate the proper entity,
- a way to communicate and build a compliance record,
not automatically as proof that the Turkey entity is the debtor’s payor.
9.3. The pragmatic approach
While service runs its course, do not wait. Run parallel tracks:
- attach the debtor’s bank accounts,
- attach known domestic receivables (clients, agencies),
- seek interim measures if risk is high,
- preserve evidence to prevent the debtor from denying account ownership later.
10) Third-Party Objections and How to Respond
Foreign platforms and payment providers typically respond in predictable ways. Prepare a response strategy in advance.
Objection A: “We are not the payor”
Response strategy:
- Identify the true payor through payment traces (bank statements, payer names).
- Redirect İİK 89 notices to the actual payor.
- Keep the platform request alive as an information bridge, but don’t waste months arguing.
Objection B: “No amount is currently payable”
Response strategy:
- Attach “amounts that become payable” and future settlement proceeds, not only “current balance.”
- Combine with bank attachment so you catch future payouts when they land.
- Use evidence (e.g., regular monthly payout schedule) to show that payability is recurring.
Objection C: “Privacy law prevents disclosure”
Response strategy:
- Narrow your request: ask only whether the entity holds “payable sums” or “receivables” for the debtor and to freeze payment.
- Avoid requesting content, messages, or unrelated personal data.
- If disclosure is essential, pursue court-ordered disclosure with precise scope.
Objection D: “The account is non-transferable”
Response strategy:
- Confirm you are not seeking transfer of the account, only attachment of receivables and monetary rights.
- This distinction often unlocks compliance.
Objection E: Silence / non-response
Response strategy:
- Document service and deadlines.
- Escalate via procedural channels tied to third-party obligations.
- Pivot immediately to reachable endpoints so the debtor does not benefit from delay.
11) Step-by-Step Action Plan for Practitioners
Step 1 — Start with a “digital asset interview”
Ask the client:
- Where does the debtor earn online?
- What are the known platforms?
- Are there screenshots, invoices, contracts, emails?
- Which bank does the debtor use?
- Are there known advertisers or agencies?
Step 2 — Build the asset map
For each platform, list:
- account handle/URL,
- type of revenue (ads, sales, subscriptions),
- payout frequency,
- payout destination (bank, wallet, processor),
- possible payor entities.
Step 3 — Choose the fastest attachable endpoint
Usually:
- debtor’s Turkish bank accounts,
- known domestic receivables,
- payment institutions,
- platform entities and paymasters.
Step 4 — Prepare a clean evidence bundle
Include:
- identity linkage (handle ↔ debtor),
- payment traces (if available),
- preserved screenshots/URLs,
- timeline of monetization and expected payout dates.
Step 5 — File the attachment requests (parallel)
- Bank attachments for immediate capture.
- İİK 89 notices to payor/payment partner.
- If justified, interim measures to freeze quickly.
Step 6 — Monitor and adapt
Digital enforcement is dynamic:
- the debtor may change payout details,
- the platform may switch payor entities,
- revenues may shift between platforms.
Treat the enforcement plan as a living strategy, not a one-time filing.
12) Original Sample Templates (English) You Can Adapt
These are original drafting templates for practical use. Replace bracketed fields with case details and adapt to the specific enforcement office’s practice.
12.1. Request to the Enforcement Office (to issue third-party attachment notices)
Subject: Request for Attachment of Debtor’s Receivables and Payables Held by Third Parties (Foreign Platform Payouts)
Explanation (draft):
We represent the creditor in the above-referenced enforcement file. The debtor generates recurring income through a foreign online platform and related payment channels. Based on the enclosed evidence, the debtor holds receivables against certain third parties arising from platform monetization and/or marketplace settlement proceeds.
Accordingly, we request that third-party attachment notices be issued to the entities listed below to attach:
(i) all amounts currently payable to the debtor, and
(ii) all amounts that will become payable in the ordinary course of settlement/payout under the relevant contractual framework, including rolling reserves, withheld balances, and any future settlement proceeds.
Third Parties (examples):
- [Payor Legal Entity Name] – [Address / service info]
- [Payment Institution Name] – [Address]
- [Debtor’s Bank Name, Branch] – [Address]
Debtor identifiers:
- Name / ID: [ ]
- Known handle / account ID: [ ]
- Platform links: [ ]
Evidence attached:
- Bank transfer traces dated [ ] showing payer name [ ]
- Screenshots of platform page and monetization indicators
- Contract/invoice/correspondence dated [ ]
Request:
We respectfully request issuance of third-party attachment notices and any further measures required to prevent dissipation of the attached sums.
12.2. Narrow disclosure request (privacy-respecting)
Purpose: to reduce “privacy refusal” risk.
Draft paragraph:
Our request is limited to whether you currently hold any amounts payable to the debtor and whether any sums will become payable under your standard payout/settlement process. We do not request access credentials, private content, communications data, or any information unrelated to payable sums and settlement payments.
12.3. Follow-up letter to a foreign compliance team (plain, cooperative tone)
Subject: Enforcement Attachment Notice – Payables and Settlement Proceeds
Dear Legal/Compliance Team,
We act for a creditor in an enforcement proceeding pending in Turkey. An attachment notice has been issued to your entity regarding sums payable to the debtor identified below. We request confirmation of:
- whether your entity holds or will hold sums payable to the debtor, and
- whether payment can be suspended and directed in accordance with the attachment notice.
Debtor: [Full name, ID if known]
Account/Handle: [ ]
Relevant URL(s): [ ]
We are available to provide certified translations if required and to clarify the scope. The request concerns payable sums only.
Sincerely,
[Attorney / Firm / Contact]
13) Common Mistakes That Destroy Digital Attachment Attempts
- Trying to seize the account itself rather than the receivables
- Not identifying the payor entity (platform ≠ payor)
- Weak identity linkage (handle not provably tied to debtor)
- Overbroad data requests that trigger privacy shutdown
- Single-track strategy (waiting on foreign service while ignoring domestic endpoints)
- Late evidence preservation (handle changes, deleted pages)
- Ignoring payout timing (missing the settlement window by days)
14) FAQ (Client-Friendly and SEO-Oriented)
Can a Turkish creditor “freeze” a debtor’s foreign platform account?
Usually you freeze payments and receivables, not the login. The realistic route is to attach the debtor’s payouts and settlement proceeds.
What is the most effective Turkish legal mechanism for platform payouts?
In most cases, attaching the debtor’s receivables held by a third party using third-party attachment notices is the practical backbone—especially when framed around payables.
If the platform is abroad, is attachment impossible?
Not necessarily. Many cases succeed by attaching the payment endpoint in Turkey (bank or payment institution) rather than the platform itself.
How do we prove the account belongs to the debtor?
Use a layered package: public attribution evidence plus the strongest proof—payment traces showing the debtor receiving funds from that ecosystem.
Can we force the platform to disclose private account data?
Broad requests often fail. Narrow, payable-focused requests are more successful. If private disclosure is necessary, it usually requires a tightly scoped court order.
Are marketplace “rolling reserves” attachable?
They can be targeted by attaching amounts that become payable, not only current balance, and by attaching the bank endpoint where settlement lands.
What about crypto accounts?
Crypto enforcement is possible but often slower and more compliance-heavy. Success depends on provider identification, service, and speed versus withdrawals.
15) Conclusion: Intercept the Value Stream, Not the Password
For “foreign platform digital accounts,” the winning Turkish-law strategy is almost always the same:
- classify the digital value as money/receivable/right,
- identify the most reachable payor/payment endpoint,
- attach via third-party mechanisms and bank attachments in parallel,
- preserve evidence early to lock account-to-debtor linkage,
- use interim measures when speed and dissipation risk are high.
Yanıt yok