Seized at Turkish Customs? How to Get Your Goods Back Under Article 131 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code

Return of Goods Seized at Turkish Customs: From Seizure to Actual Release

Having goods seized by Turkish Customs does not necessarily mean that the owner has permanently lost them. In many cases, seizure is a temporary protective measure taken during a criminal investigation. Whether the goods can ultimately be recovered depends on the legal basis of the seizure, the status of the criminal investigation, the evidentiary value of the goods and, most importantly, whether the goods may legally be subject to confiscation.

The central provision governing the return of property seized in criminal proceedings is Article 131 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 5271 – “CMK”).

Article 131 provides that property belonging to a suspect, defendant or third party may be returned, either ex officio or upon request, where its continued retention is no longer necessary for the investigation or prosecution, or where it is understood that the property will not be subject to confiscation. The decision may be given by the public prosecutor, judge or court, and a refusal of a return request is open to objection.

For customs cases, however, Article 131 cannot be considered in isolation. Where the seizure is connected with an alleged smuggling offence under Law No. 5607 on Combating Smuggling, the special confiscation and liquidation provisions of Law No. 5607 must also be examined.

1. The First Question: Is This a Customs Detention or a Criminal Seizure?

The first step is to determine the exact legal nature of the measure applied to the goods.

Not every situation in which goods are physically held by Customs constitutes a criminal seizure under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Goods may be prevented from entering free circulation because of missing permits, incorrect declarations, product-safety requirements, customs valuation disputes, origin issues or other administrative customs-law problems. Such cases may remain principally within the scope of Law No. 4458 on Customs and the relevant administrative procedures.

A different situation arises where Customs considers that the facts may constitute a criminal offence, particularly an offence falling under Law No. 5607.

Law No. 5607 expressly provides that searches and seizures relating to suspected smuggled goods are carried out in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. Goods seized on suspicion of smuggling are ordinarily delivered to the customs administration for safekeeping and recorded with identifying characteristics.

This distinction is essential because an application under Article 131 CMK is primarily relevant where there is an adli elkoyma, meaning a criminal-procedure seizure.

2. Identifying the Criminal Investigation File

Before requesting the return of the goods, the relevant criminal investigation must be identified.

The owner or lawyer should determine:

• which Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office is conducting the investigation;
• the investigation file number;
• the suspected offence;
• whether the allegation is based on Law No. 5607;
• the date and legal basis of seizure;
• whether a judge has approved or ordered the seizure;
• where the goods are physically being stored; and
• whether a liquidation procedure has already been initiated.

The seizure report, customs detection report, delivery record, customs declaration, invoices, transport documents and any judicial seizure decision should therefore be reviewed together.

This stage is frequently underestimated. Applying for the “return of goods” without first establishing whether the goods are being held administratively or as evidence in a criminal file may result in an application being submitted to the wrong authority.

3. Article 131 CMK: The Main Legal Basis for Return

Article 131 CMK is the central statutory mechanism for recovering property seized during criminal proceedings.

Its importance lies in the fact that seizure is not intended to become an indefinite deprivation of property.

The provision recognises that property may initially need to be taken under judicial control but that continued physical retention must be reconsidered once the justification for retaining it disappears.

Two questions therefore become decisive:

Is the physical possession of the goods still necessary for the investigation or trial?

And:

Are the goods likely to be subject to confiscation?

Article 131 expressly permits return upon request and also allows the competent authority to order return on its own initiative.

4. Is the Property Still Needed as Evidence?

One of the strongest arguments for a return application is that the goods are no longer necessary for evidentiary purposes.

At the beginning of a customs investigation, authorities may need to examine the goods to determine matters such as their quantity, origin, customs value, technical characteristics, authenticity or compatibility with the declaration.

However, the need for physical custody may substantially decrease once these examinations have been completed.

For example, where detailed photographs, expert examinations, laboratory results, customs assessments, samples, serial-number records and seizure reports already establish the relevant characteristics of the goods, the applicant may argue that continued physical retention serves no additional evidentiary purpose.

The application should therefore not merely state that the owner needs the goods.

It should explain why the authorities no longer need them.

This is a crucial distinction.

A commercially valuable product being unavailable to its owner may demonstrate the seriousness of the economic consequences of seizure. Nevertheless, the legal basis for return under Article 131 must be connected to the conditions specified in the provision.

The most persuasive return applications therefore identify which investigative acts concerning the goods have already been completed and explain why the evidence can be preserved without continuing to retain the entire shipment.

5. The Confiscation Question Is Often Decisive

In Turkish customs-smuggling cases, the second and frequently more difficult question is whether the goods are potentially subject to müsadere, or confiscation.

Under Article 13 of Law No. 5607, the confiscation provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code concerning property and proceeds are applicable to smuggling offences. Article 54 of the Turkish Criminal Code regulates property confiscation and includes rules concerning property used for the commission of intentional offences and property constituting or resulting from an offence.

Law No. 5607 then contains a particularly important special provision.

Under Article 16, goods that may be subject to confiscation because they constitute the subject matter of an offence defined by the Anti-Smuggling Law cannot be returned to their owner.

This rule has major practical consequences.

It means that, in a smuggling investigation, demonstrating that the authorities have completed their examination of the goods may not by itself be sufficient. The return request must also confront the alleged legal basis for confiscation.

A well-prepared Article 131 application should therefore explain why the goods do not constitute smuggled goods, why the alleged offence is not made out, why the relevant conduct amounts—if anything—to an administrative customs irregularity rather than a criminal offence, or why the confiscation requirements are otherwise absent.

6. Third-Party Ownership Can Be Highly Relevant

Customs seizures sometimes affect persons or companies other than the suspect.

For example, ownership of the goods may belong to a foreign supplier, financing company, logistics provider or another commercial entity that has no involvement in the alleged criminal conduct.

Article 131 is not limited to property belonging to the suspect or defendant. It expressly refers to property belonging to third parties as well.

The ownership question should therefore be proved with documentary evidence such as invoices, contracts, payment records, bills of lading, warehouse documents and other commercial records.

Third-party ownership may be particularly significant in confiscation analysis. Turkish criminal law generally protects bona fide third-party property in the application of confiscation rules, although the special provisions of Law No. 5607 must always be separately considered when the property itself allegedly constitutes the subject matter of the smuggling offence.

The distinction between goods constituting the alleged contraband itself and property merely connected with transportation or another aspect of the alleged offence can therefore be legally significant.

7. Requesting Return During the Investigation Stage

Where the matter remains at the investigation stage, the return request should normally be submitted in connection with the relevant prosecutor’s investigation file.

Article 131 authorises the Public Prosecutor, judge or court to decide on return depending on the procedural situation.

The application should identify the seized goods precisely and provide documentary evidence of ownership.

More importantly, it should address both substantive issues:

the absence of any continuing need to retain the goods and the absence of a sufficient legal basis for confiscation.

A strong petition may also request, where appropriate, that expert examination, sampling, photographing or other necessary evidentiary procedures be completed immediately so that the physical goods can thereafter be released.

8. Requesting Return During the Trial Stage

If an indictment has already been accepted and criminal proceedings have commenced, the matter enters the prosecution or trial stage.

The return request should then ordinarily be directed to the court hearing the criminal case.

In smuggling cases under Law No. 5607, the competent criminal courts are determined in accordance with the special jurisdiction rule contained in the Law. The relevant customs administration may also participate in criminal proceedings concerning offences under Law No. 5607.

The fact that the criminal trial is continuing does not automatically require the goods to remain physically seized until final judgment.

Article 131 exists precisely because the continued necessity of seizure may change during the proceedings.

Therefore, return may be requested before the criminal case has reached its final conclusion where the statutory conditions have arisen.

9. What Happens If the Return Request Is Rejected?

Article 131 expressly states that decisions rejecting requests for the return of seized property may be challenged by way of objection – itiraz.

The objection should directly answer the grounds given for refusing return.

If the refusal is based on continued evidentiary necessity, the objection should identify the examinations already performed and explain why continued custody is disproportionate or unnecessary.

If the refusal is based on possible confiscation, the objection should address the elements of the alleged offence and the legal requirements for confiscation.

Under the current general CMK objection regime, Article 268 provides a two-week objection period following the 2024 amendment introduced by Law No. 7499. The amendment replacing the former seven-day period became applicable under the statutory transitional regime from 1 June 2024.

Because the competent reviewing authority can depend on the authority that issued the decision and the procedural stage of the file, the objection must be prepared according to the exact procedural status of the case rather than by using a generic form.

10. The Risk of Liquidation While the Case Is Pending

A particularly important issue in Turkish customs cases is that seized goods may be subject to tasfiye, meaning liquidation or disposal, before the criminal proceedings have reached a final judgment.

Under Article 16 of Law No. 5607, goods potentially subject to confiscation because they constitute the subject matter of a smuggling offence are subject to a special liquidation system.

For most goods other than illegal fuel, the law provides for a liquidation decision within six months from seizure. Where there is a danger of deterioration, substantial loss in value or serious storage burden, a considerably shorter one-month framework applies.

Consequently, a goods owner should not assume that the shipment will necessarily remain untouched in a customs warehouse until the criminal case is concluded.

This makes early legal intervention particularly important where the goods are perishable, seasonal, technologically depreciating or commercially sensitive.

11. What If the Goods Have Already Been Sold or Liquidated?

Physical return may no longer be possible where the goods have already been liquidated.

Turkish law addresses this possibility.

Under Article 16 of Law No. 5607, the proceeds of goods sold through liquidation are placed into an escrow account. If a later decision orders the goods to be returned to their owner, the law provides for payment to the rightful owner under the statutory mechanism, including statutory interest calculated for the relevant period. Where the escrow amount is insufficient, or where the goods have been destroyed, the legislation also contains provisions for compensating the rightful owner.

Therefore, “return” does not always mean physical delivery of the exact goods.

Depending on what has happened during the proceedings, the remedy may ultimately take the form of monetary restitution.

12. How Is a Return Decision Implemented by Customs?

Obtaining a judicial return decision is a major step, but it is not always the final practical step.

The customs authority holding the goods must implement the judicial decision.

Article 16 of Law No. 5607 specifically provides that where return of seized goods is ordered, implementation must be carried out in accordance with the applicable customs and foreign-trade legislation.

This means that a criminal court’s decision lifting the seizure does not necessarily eliminate every customs-law requirement concerning the goods.

For example, the goods may still be subject to import licences, product conformity requirements, customs duties, restrictions, permits or another legally applicable customs procedure.

Accordingly, two separate questions may arise:

Must the criminal seizure be lifted?

and

Under what customs procedure may the goods thereafter be released, imported, exported or re-exported?

These questions should not be confused.

The applicable liquidation regulations also contain an important implementation rule for return decisions: certain interlocutory return decisions subject to objection are implemented without waiting for them to become final, although the authority challenging the decision may seek suspension of implementation under Article 269 CMK.

13. What Should an Effective Article 131 Application Contain?

A return request should not be limited to a short statement such as “the goods belong to us and we request their return.”

The application should reconstruct the legal history of the seizure.

It should specify the seizure date, investigation number, customs authority, location of the goods, ownership documents and the exact judicial measure being challenged.

It should then answer the core Article 131 questions.

Why are the goods no longer necessary as evidence?

What examinations have already been performed?

Can evidence be preserved by samples, expert reports, photographs, serial-number records or customs documentation?

Why are the requirements for confiscation absent?

Is the applicant the suspect, defendant or an independent third-party owner?

Is there an imminent liquidation risk?

Has the customs administration already started liquidation proceedings?

These questions usually determine whether a return application is merely formal or legally persuasive.

14. Article 131 CMK and the Protection of Property Rights

The return mechanism under Article 131 reflects a broader principle of criminal procedure: seizure is a protective measure, not a punishment.

A person does not lose ownership merely because property has been seized during an investigation.

Continued deprivation of possession requires a continuing legal justification.

The legislative rationale of Article 131 itself emphasises that retaining property after it is no longer required for proceedings may interfere with property rights and that goods should therefore be returned when continued possession by judicial authorities is no longer justified.

For businesses engaged in international trade, this principle has substantial practical importance.

A shipment may represent working capital, contractual obligations, customer orders and commercial relationships. Even temporary seizure may therefore create economic consequences far beyond the physical value of the products themselves.

For this reason, the return procedure should generally be addressed as early as possible rather than only after the criminal proceedings have ended.

Conclusion

The recovery of goods seized at Turkish Customs depends first on correctly identifying why the goods are being held.

Where the matter concerns a criminal seizure, Article 131 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code is the principal legal mechanism for requesting return.

The central questions are whether continued physical retention remains necessary for the investigation or trial and whether the property may lawfully be subject to confiscation.

In cases falling under Law No. 5607 on Combating Smuggling, the confiscation issue becomes particularly important because goods that may be confiscated as the subject matter of a smuggling offence cannot simply be returned while that legal basis continues to exist.

An effective legal strategy should therefore proceed chronologically: identify the investigation file, examine the seizure decision, establish ownership, determine whether evidentiary examinations have been completed, analyse confiscation risk, submit the Article 131 request, challenge any refusal and closely monitor possible liquidation proceedings.

Finally, obtaining a return decision and obtaining physical delivery are not always the same thing. The judicial decision must be transmitted to and implemented by the customs administration, while any remaining customs and foreign-trade requirements must also be satisfied.

For that reason, the most effective approach to recovering seized goods in Turkey usually requires the criminal-procedure rules governing seizure and return to be analysed together with the special rules of Turkish customs and anti-smuggling legislation.