A creditor obtains a clear claim against a debtor.

Before enforcement becomes effective, the debtor begins transferring assets:

• an apartment to his spouse;
• land to his brother;
• vehicles to a friend;
• company shares to his son;
• receivables to a related company;
• cash to another person’s bank account.

When enforcement proceedings finally reach the attachment stage, the debtor appears to own almost nothing.

The debtor’s position is:

“Those assets no longer belong to me. They belong to third parties, so you cannot seize them.”

Under Turkish law, this is not necessarily the end of the case.

A creditor may have several powerful remedies where a debtor transfers assets to third parties in order to make collection difficult or impossible.

The most important are:

1. an action for avoidance of dispositions under Articles 277–284 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (“EBL” / İİK);
2. a simulation claim under Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO” / TBK);
3. precautionary protection over the transferred property;
4. monetary recovery against the transferee where the asset has already been resold.

The correct remedy depends on one critical distinction:

Was the transfer genuine but prejudicial to creditors, or was it never a genuine transfer at all?

That distinction determines the legal strategy.

1. Transferring an Asset Does Not Automatically Place It Beyond the Creditor’s Reach

A debtor is generally free to dispose of property.

The mere fact that a debtor sold an apartment after incurring debt does not automatically make the sale unlawful.

A genuine arm’s-length transaction may be completely valid.

For example:

• apartment market value: TRY 15 million;
• sale price: TRY 15 million;
• purchaser: unrelated third party;
• full payment through a bank;
• debtor remains financially solvent.

This is very different from:

• apartment market value: TRY 15 million;
• sale price: TRY 1 million;
• purchaser: debtor’s brother;
• no genuine payment;
• transfer made immediately after a payment demand;
• debtor has no other meaningful assets.

The second scenario may provide strong grounds for creditor protection.

The law therefore examines not merely whether ownership changed, but:

why, when, to whom and for what consideration the asset was transferred.

2. The Principal Remedy: Action for Avoidance of Dispositions

Articles 277 et seq. of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law regulate the tasarrufun iptali davası, commonly translated as an action for avoidance of dispositions.

The purpose is to protect creditors against certain transactions through which a debtor removes assets from the enforcement pool.

Article 277 permits qualifying creditors holding a temporary or final certificate of insolvency to challenge dispositions falling within Articles 278, 279 and 280.

The concept is important because the lawsuit does not necessarily assert that the underlying transfer was invalid between the debtor and the purchaser.

The transfer may remain valid in private law.

Instead, the creditor seeks to make that transaction ineffective against enforcement.

3. The Creditor Usually Does Not Become the Owner

Suppose:

Debtor A transfers a property to B.

Creditor C successfully challenges the transaction.

The normal result is not:

Property returns automatically to A.

Nor does C become the owner.

Under Article 283, the successful creditor obtains the right to pursue attachment and forced sale against the transferred asset within the limits of the creditor’s claim.

The property can therefore remain registered in the third party’s name while being exposed to compulsory enforcement.

Recent Court of Cassation jurisprudence follows this structure even in simulation-related creditor claims, applying Article 283/1 by analogy so that the creditor can seek attachment and sale without requiring cancellation and re-registration of title.

This is one of the most practically important aspects of the remedy.

4. The Debt Normally Must Predate the Challenged Transfer

A fundamental condition in statutory avoidance litigation is that the creditor’s claim must generally have arisen before the transfer being challenged.

Suppose:

Debt arises: 1 February 2025

Apartment transferred: 1 September 2025

Enforcement begins: 1 March 2026

The fact that enforcement began after the property transfer does not automatically defeat the creditor’s case.

The important question is whether the underlying debt existed before the disposition.

The Court of Cassation continues to treat this as a specific condition of avoidance litigation. In a 2026 decision, the 12th Civil Chamber reiterated that a qualifying avoidance action requires, among other matters, a real claim, a finalised enforcement proceeding, the disposition occurring after the origin of the debt and the relevant insolvency documentation.

Therefore:

date of enforcement ≠ date the debt arose.

This distinction is particularly important in commercial relationships involving:

• framework loan agreements;
• continuing supply relationships;
• guarantees;
• current accounts;
• later-issued cheques;
• promissory notes.

5. The Source of the Debt Must Be Investigated

Suppose a promissory note was issued in 2026 but the underlying commercial debt arose from supplies made during 2024.

The debtor transferred property in 2025.

The debtor may argue:

“The promissory note was issued after the transfer.”

The creditor should respond by proving the earlier underlying debt relationship.

Evidence may include:

• invoices;
• delivery documents;
• bank payments;
• commercial books;
• contracts;
• credit agreements;
• acknowledgement of debt;
• correspondence.

The litigation should therefore establish a debt timeline, not merely attach the enforcement payment order.

6. A Finalised Enforcement Proceeding Is Normally Required

The statutory avoidance mechanism under Article 277 ordinarily operates within an enforcement framework.

Court of Cassation case law requires the enforcement proceeding against the debtor to have become final before the statutory action is adjudicated.

This is because avoidance litigation is designed to supplement compulsory enforcement where ordinary enforcement against the debtor’s remaining property has proven insufficient.

The creditor should therefore generally:

1. commence enforcement;
2. finalise the proceeding;
3. investigate and attach the debtor’s property;
4. establish insufficiency;
5. pursue the avoidance claim.

7. The Certificate of Insolvency Is a Critical Requirement

Article 277 expressly refers to creditors holding a temporary or final certificate of insolvency.

The purpose is to demonstrate that ordinary recovery against the debtor is insufficient.

Depending on the circumstances, this may arise through:

• a final insolvency certificate;
• a temporary certificate;
• a qualifying attachment report carrying the effect of a temporary insolvency certificate.

This requirement should never be treated as a technical detail.

A creditor may have overwhelming evidence that the debtor transferred a villa to his spouse, yet still face procedural difficulties if the statutory avoidance prerequisites have not been properly completed.

8. Gratuitous Transfers Are Especially Vulnerable

Article 278 focuses on gratuitous transactions.

The provision was materially amended by Law No. 7571, effective 25 December 2025.

Under the current wording, ordinary gifts are excluded, but gifts and other gratuitous transactions made during the one-year period before the relevant temporary/final insolvency certificate, qualifying attachment record or bankruptcy opening are subject to avoidance.

This is important because older commentary frequently refers to the former two-year structure.

Current cases must therefore be analysed using the amended wording.

9. Transfers to Relatives Are Now Expressly Regulated in Article 278

The current version of Article 278 provides particular rules for transactions involving persons closely connected to the debtor.

Unless it is proven that the transaction was genuinely for consideration corresponding to the asset’s real value, the following types of transfers may be treated like gifts:

• transactions between descendants and ascendants;
• specified blood relatives;
• spouses, including certain recently terminated marriages;
• specified relatives by marriage;
• adopter and adopted child;
• persons sharing the same household.

The rule therefore shifts the focus directly onto real value and genuine consideration.

The mere wording “sale” in the title deed is not enough.

10. Example: Apartment Transferred to the Debtor’s Wife

Assume:

Debt: TRY 12 million

Apartment market value: TRY 20 million

Purchaser: debtor’s spouse

Deed price: TRY 4 million

Bank payment: none

Debtor’s remaining assets: negligible

The defendants may claim:

“This was a sale.”

But the court should examine:

• whether TRY 4 million was genuinely paid;
• whether that price corresponded to real value;
• whether the spouse had financial capacity;
• whether the debtor continued using the property;
• whether the transfer occurred during financial distress.

A transfer to a spouse is therefore not automatically untouchable merely because the title deed formally describes it as a sale.

11. Undervalue Is an Important Indicator

The current Article 278 also addresses contracts where the debtor accepts a price that is very low compared with the genuine value of what was transferred, subject to the statutory evidentiary framework.

Example:

Actual value: TRY 30 million

Purported price: TRY 5 million

The difference can become powerful evidence.

However, valuation should not be superficial.

If the purchaser also:

• assumes mortgage debt;
• discharges liens;
• pays secured creditors;

those economic burdens may need to be considered when evaluating the true consideration.

The real issue is economic value exchanged, not merely the number appearing in the deed.

12. Article 280 Is Often the Strongest Provision in Asset-Stripping Cases

Article 280 deals with transfers made with the intent to prejudice creditors.

Under the provision, transactions by a debtor whose assets are insufficient to cover liabilities may be avoided where:

• the debtor intended to harm creditors; and
• the counterparty knew of the debtor’s financial condition and prejudicial intention, or clear circumstances existed requiring such knowledge.

The enforcement or bankruptcy proceeding must also be initiated within five years of the transaction.

This provision is particularly important where the transfer does not fit neatly into the shorter Article 278 period.

13. More Than One Year Has Passed—Is the Creditor Too Late?

Not necessarily.

This is a common misconception.

Article 278 now contains a one-year structure for the relevant gratuitous transactions.

But Article 280 independently deals with intentional creditor prejudice.

Therefore, an older transaction may still be vulnerable where the creditor can establish:

• financial insufficiency;
• debtor’s intent to prejudice creditors;
• transferee’s knowledge or circumstances demonstrating knowledge;
• commencement of enforcement within the statutory five-year framework.

The creditor should never stop the analysis after concluding that the Article 278 period has expired.

14. The Third Party’s Knowledge Is Often the Central Battle

Suppose the debtor sells property at a reasonably defensible price to an unrelated buyer.

The creditor relies on Article 280.

The creditor must ordinarily establish that the purchaser knew or should have known of the debtor’s financial position and intent.

The Court of Cassation is careful not to infer bad faith too easily.

In Yargıtay 12th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4821, K.2026/981, dated 17 February 2026, the Court held that merely being registered in the same village population records and having a single commercial relationship were insufficient to prove the third party’s knowledge. Concrete evidence or sufficiently clear indicators were required.

This is highly relevant.

Acquaintance is not automatically bad faith.

15. What Evidence Can Prove Third-Party Knowledge?

Useful indicators may include:

• close family relationship;
• continuous commercial dealings;
• shared businesses;
• common directors or shareholders;
• repeated banking transactions;
• same registered address;
• purchaser’s knowledge of pending enforcement;
• extraordinarily low purchase price;
• purchaser lacking financial capacity;
• rapid series of transfers;
• debtor continuing possession;
• circular payments.

In Yargıtay 12th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4842, K.2026/467, the Court criticised incomplete investigation of bank transfers and the relationship between the debtor and purchaser when determining whether the purchaser knew of the debtor’s financial position.

Following the money can therefore become more important than formal witness statements.

16. The Asset May Be Transferred Several Times

Debtors frequently do not stop after one transfer.

The structure may look like:

Debtor → Brother → Friend → Company

The creditor must decide whether to include later purchasers.

Article 282 permits claims against:

• the debtor;
• persons who directly transacted with the debtor or received payment;
• their heirs;
• and later bad-faith third parties.

Good-faith rights of later purchasers remain protected.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence commonly describes the person purchasing from the debtor’s immediate transferee as the “fourth person,” whose liability depends on proving bad faith.

17. Later Purchasers Are Not Automatically Protected

A later transferee may claim:

“I did not deal directly with the debtor.”

That is relevant but not decisive.

If the later purchaser knew the transfer chain was designed to defeat creditors, that purchaser may also be exposed.

In Yargıtay 12th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4806, K.2026/342, the Court emphasised factors including:

• several properties following the same transfer chain;
• persons connected with the debtor continuing to occupy the properties;
• circumstances inconsistent with ordinary commercial behaviour.

The Court held that these indicators required a proper examination of the later purchaser’s bad faith.

Transaction patterns matter.

18. But a Genuine Good-Faith Purchaser Must Be Protected

Avoidance legislation is not intended to destabilise every commercial transaction involving a debtor.

Suppose the immediate transferee later sells the property to:

• an unrelated person;
• at market value;
• after a normal negotiation;
• with genuine banking payment;
• without any knowledge of the debtor’s situation.

Article 282 protects good-faith third-party rights.

Recovery of the physical asset may then become difficult.

The creditor may need to focus on the immediate transferee’s financial liability instead.

19. If the Property Has Been Resold, the First Transferee May Owe Money

Article 283 contains one of the creditor’s most important fallback protections.

If the third party has disposed of the transferred asset, liability may shift to the value replacing the property.

The transferee may be ordered to compensate the creditor in cash, subject to the creditor’s claim ceiling.

The Court of Cassation states that the relevant liability may be calculated according to the property’s real value at the time it was disposed of by the third party.

Example:

Debtor transfers land to brother.

Brother later sells land to a bona fide buyer for TRY 20 million.

The creditor may no longer be able to reach the land itself.

But the brother may face monetary liability up to the creditor’s unpaid claim, depending on the circumstances.

20. Example: The Transfer Chain Ends With a Good-Faith Buyer

Assume:

Debtor owes creditor: TRY 10 million

Property transferred to sister: TRY 2 million

Actual value: TRY 15 million

Sister then sells to independent purchaser for TRY 15 million.

If the second buyer is genuinely protected by good faith, the creditor may instead seek the legal consequences against the sister.

The creditor should therefore always ask:

Where is the property now?

and

Where did the sale proceeds go?

21. Precautionary Attachment Can Save the Case

A successful judgment after several years may have little value if the property is sold repeatedly while the case is pending.

Article 281 expressly permits the court to order precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) over property forming the subject matter of the avoidance action at the creditor’s request.

The court determines whether security is required and in what amount.

This remedy should usually be considered at the beginning of the lawsuit.

22. Why Precautionary Attachment Matters

Suppose the disputed property is worth TRY 50 million.

The creditor’s claim is TRY 20 million.

The property is currently in the debtor’s brother’s name.

Without protective relief, the brother can potentially attempt another transfer.

If precautionary attachment is imposed, the creditor significantly improves the practical security of the litigation.

Recent Court of Cassation jurisprudence also confirms that an Article 281 precautionary attachment becomes a definitive attachment when the avoidance judgment is rendered, which can have important consequences in priority disputes.

23. The Statutory Five-Year Cut-Off Must Be Watched

Article 284 establishes a strict period for the statutory avoidance action.

The right to sue expires five years after the challenged disposition.

This is a forfeiture period.

A creditor should therefore identify the exact transfer date immediately.

Transfer: 20 September 2022

A case pursued after the five-year cut-off may fail regardless of how suspicious the transaction appears.

International negotiations, settlement talks or unsuccessful enforcement should not cause counsel to overlook this deadline.

24. There Is a Separate Route Where the Transfer Is Fake: TBK Article 19

Not every asset-stripping case should be brought solely under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

Sometimes the transaction itself is fictitious.

Suppose a debtor “sells” his apartment to a friend.

In reality:

• no money is paid;
• the debtor remains in the property;
• the friend has agreed to return it later;
• both parties know the title transfer is merely for appearance.

This raises simulation (muvazaa) under Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

The legal theory is different.

25. Avoidable Transaction Versus Simulated Transaction

The distinction can be stated simply.

Avoidance under İİK 277 et seq.

The transaction is genuinely made and legally effective between the parties.

But it prejudices creditors and may be rendered ineffective against the creditor.

Simulation under TBK Article 19

The apparent transaction does not reflect the true intention of the parties.

It is attacked as a sham.

This distinction is repeatedly emphasised by the Court of Cassation.

In Yargıtay 12th Civil Chamber, E.2025/5931, K.2026/13, dated 12 January 2026, the Court drew a clear distinction between statutory avoidance and TBK Article 19 simulation claims and emphasised that their procedural requirements differ.

26. A Major Advantage of the TBK Article 19 Route

A true simulation claim does not require all the same preliminary conditions as a statutory avoidance action.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence recognises that a TBK Article 19 creditor claim does not require the existence of a finalised enforcement proceeding in the same way as an İİK 277 action.

This can be critically important where a creditor discovers a sham transfer before enforcement has progressed sufficiently to obtain an insolvency certificate.

However, this does not mean every suspicious transaction should simply be relabelled “simulation.”

27. TBK Article 19 Cannot Be Used Merely to Avoid the Requirements of İİK 277

The claimant must genuinely prove simulation.

For example:

Genuine but prejudicial transaction

Debtor actually gives property to his daughter because he wants to prevent creditors from reaching it.

This may be a statutory avoidance issue.

Fictitious transaction

Debtor puts title in his brother’s name but both agree that the brother is merely holding the property on paper.

This is a stronger simulation case.

The facts must determine the legal characterisation.

28. The Court of Cassation Also Applies Article 283 by Analogy in Simulation Cases

An important practical point appears in recent jurisprudence.

In Yargıtay 12th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4844, K.2026/194, dated 19 January 2026, the Court confirmed in a TBK Article 19 simulation dispute that the judgment should give the creditor authority, by analogous application of Article 283/1, to seek attachment and sale up to the amount of its claim without requiring conventional title cancellation and re-registration.

This produces a creditor-focused remedy even where the legal basis is simulation.

29. Interim Protection Is Different in a TBK Article 19 Case

A useful recent Court of Cassation decision distinguishes the protective remedies available in the two types of litigation.

In statutory avoidance claims under İİK 277 et seq., Article 281 specifically provides for precautionary attachment.

By contrast, in a genuine TBK Article 19 simulation action, the Court of Cassation held in 2026 that an interim injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) under the Civil Procedure Code may be the appropriate mechanism depending on the relief sought.

This distinction can matter considerably when drafting the initial petition.

30. Which Route Is Better?

There is no universal answer.

Statutory avoidance may be preferable where:

• the transfer was genuine;
• the creditor has completed the required enforcement stage;
• an insolvency certificate is available;
• Article 278 or 280 clearly applies.

TBK Article 19 may be preferable where:

• the transaction was fictitious;
• the third party was merely a nominee;
• no genuine consideration existed;
• the parties never intended a genuine transfer.

In complex cases, legal grounds may be pleaded carefully in the alternative where procedural rules allow.

The facts must be stated precisely enough for the court to apply the correct legal rule.

31. Cash Transfers Can Also Be Challenged

The problem is not limited to real estate.

A debtor may move:

• cash;
• receivables;
• securities;
• vehicles;
• company shares;
• inventory;
• negotiable instruments.

Recent Court of Cassation decisions demonstrate that even endorsement and transfer of a promissory note may be challenged where used through a simulated structure to defeat a creditor.

The creditor should therefore examine the entire balance sheet, not merely land registry records.

32. Company Shares Transferred to a Relative

Suppose a debtor owns 70% of a profitable company.

After receiving a payment demand, he transfers 65% to his son.

The creditor should investigate:

• date of debt;
• share transfer agreement;
• real company value;
• payment;
• son’s financial capacity;
• continued control by debtor;
• dividend payments after transfer.

If the transfer was gratuitous, highly undervalued or intentionally creditor-prejudicing, statutory avoidance may become relevant.

If the son is only a nominal shareholder and the debtor remains the true economic owner under a sham arrangement, simulation may also need to be examined.

33. Transfers to a Newly Established Company

Another common strategy is:

Debtor → Newly Established Company

The debtor may transfer:

• real estate;
• machinery;
• receivables;
• customer contracts;
• inventory

into another company controlled by a spouse or business partner.

The creditor should ask:

Who owns the new company?

What consideration was paid?

Was there a genuine business reason?

Did the old debtor company become empty immediately afterwards?

Did the same managers, employees and customers simply continue under the new entity?

A business restructuring may be legitimate.

A structure whose real effect is to leave creditors with an empty debtor may present very different legal consequences.

34. Continued Control Is Powerful Circumstantial Evidence

Formal ownership and economic control may diverge.

For example:

Debtor transfers company shares to brother.

After transfer, debtor still:

• signs contracts;
• controls banking;
• appoints management;
• receives profits;
• negotiates the sale of the company.

This does not alone prove simulation.

But combined with:

• no purchase payment;
• close relationship;
• transfer after default;

it may substantially strengthen the creditor’s case.

35. The Purchaser’s Financial Capacity Matters

Suppose a debtor transfers TRY 25 million property to a 22-year-old relative with no significant declared income.

The deed states:

“Sale price: TRY 20 million.”

A critical question is:

Where did the buyer get TRY 20 million?

Evidence should include, where procedurally obtainable:

• bank statements;
• loan records;
• asset-sale records;
• tax information;
• payment documents.

A contractual document stating that a price was paid is not necessarily enough if the economic evidence shows otherwise.

36. Follow the Sale Price

The strongest question in many asset-transfer disputes is:

Where is the money?

If the debtor genuinely sold the property for TRY 20 million, the creditor should investigate the TRY 20 million.

Possibilities include:

• money remains in debtor’s account;
• money paid legitimate debts;
• money transferred to another relative;
• money returned to purchaser;
• no payment ever existed.

This can determine whether the creditor should focus on:

• the original asset;
• sale proceeds;
• another transferee;
• or a broader fraudulent transfer chain.

37. Repeated Transfers Can Demonstrate a Pattern

Suppose, within four weeks, the debtor transfers:

• apartment to wife;
• office to brother;
• car to son;
• company shares to friend;
• bank funds to another company.

Each transaction should be analysed individually.

But the overall chronology can also become powerful evidence.

The creditor may argue that the debtor systematically emptied his estate once collection became foreseeable.

Timing can therefore become an essential part of the Article 280 intent analysis.

38. The Timing of Payment Demands Is Important

Consider:

5 May — formal payment demand

8 May — apartment transferred

12 May — company shares transferred

15 May — bank account emptied

20 May — enforcement initiated

The fact that enforcement commenced after the transfers is not necessarily helpful to the debtor.

The close relationship between the payment demand and asset disposals can support the allegation that the debtor anticipated collection and acted to frustrate it.

39. A Genuine Sale Is a Strong Defence

Creditors must also recognise the limits of avoidance law.

Suppose the debtor:

• sells an asset at market value;
• to an unrelated purchaser;
• receives full banking payment;
• remains sufficiently solvent;
• uses proceeds for genuine commercial purposes.

The transaction should not be characterised as creditor fraud merely because it occurred during a period in which the debtor had outstanding obligations.

Avoidance law does not freeze all debtor property automatically.

The claimant must prove the relevant statutory requirements.

40. The Strongest Cases Are Built Through Financial Evidence

A successful claim should ideally combine:

Transfer Evidence

• title records;
• vehicle registry;
• share ledgers;
• assignment agreements.

Valuation Evidence

• expert reports;
• market comparables;
• financial statements.

Payment Evidence

• bank statements;
• SWIFT/EFT records;
• cheque records;
• alleged set-off documents.

Relationship Evidence

• family records;
• corporate registry links;
• common addresses;
• commercial dealings.

Insolvency Evidence

• enforcement files;
• attachment reports;
• insolvency certificate.

Chronology

• debt date;
• payment demands;
• transfers;
• enforcement.

The case should tell a coherent financial story.

41. A Practical Example

Assume:

Creditor has a TRY 18 million commercial receivable.

The debt arose in January 2025.

In March 2025, the creditor sends a formal demand.

In April:

• debtor transfers an apartment worth TRY 12 million to his wife for TRY 2 million;
• transfers a vehicle to his brother;
• assigns a TRY 4 million receivable to a company owned by a friend.

Enforcement is commenced in June.

No significant debtor assets are found.

The litigation strategy may include:

Apartment

Examine Articles 278 and 280.

Investigate actual consideration and spouse-related statutory rules.

Request precautionary attachment under Article 281.

Vehicle

Investigate consideration, relationship and Article 280 knowledge.

Receivable

Obtain assignment documents and investigate whether payment was genuine.

If assignment is fictitious, TBK Article 19 may be considered.

Enforcement File

Complete the conditions necessary to obtain the relevant insolvency documentation.

A comprehensive recovery strategy may therefore involve several assets and several legal grounds at once.

42. What Should the Creditor Do Immediately?

Once suspicious transfers are identified, counsel should proceed systematically:

1. Determine when the debt arose.
2. Obtain complete asset-transfer records.
3. Continue enforcement without delay.
4. Complete attachment procedures and obtain insolvency evidence.
5. Identify whether Article 278, 279 or 280 applies.
6. Determine whether the transfer was genuine or simulated.
7. Investigate the transferee’s relationship and financial capacity.
8. Trace the sale consideration.
9. Check for later transfers.
10. Request precautionary protection.
11. Calculate the five-year Article 284 deadline immediately.

The creditor should not wait until the debtor has completed three or four additional transfers.

43. The Most Common Strategic Error: Suing Only the Debtor

A creditor sometimes continues the ordinary enforcement case against the debtor while ignoring the third-party transfers.

If all valuable assets now stand in other names, an ordinary enforcement proceeding may produce nothing.

The creditor must decide whether the dispute has evolved from:

simple debt collection

into:

asset recovery litigation.

Once that happens, the transferees and transfer chain become central to recovery.

44. The Second Common Error: Automatically Suing Every Later Purchaser

The opposite mistake is also possible.

A creditor may add every person in the transfer chain without examining good faith.

That can:

• increase litigation costs;
• complicate evidence;
• weaken credibility.

Recent Court of Cassation jurisprudence shows that knowledge must be established with concrete indicators. Simple social proximity or an isolated commercial relationship may be insufficient.

Each defendant should therefore be included based on a specific factual theory.

45. The Real Objective Is Collection, Not Merely a Declaration of Wrongdoing

The creditor’s goal is not simply to obtain a judgment stating:

“The debtor behaved improperly.”

The judgment should create a practical route to collection.

That means the strategy must continuously ask:

• Can this asset still be seized?
• Has it already been transferred?
• Is the later purchaser protected?
• Can monetary liability be imposed on the first transferee?
• Is precautionary attachment possible?
• Are there other assets belonging to the transferee?

Litigation should be designed around enforceability.

Conclusion

A debtor who transfers assets into third-party names does not automatically defeat the creditor.

Turkish law provides a sophisticated framework for attacking creditor-prejudicing transactions.

Where the transfer is genuine but prejudicial, Articles 277–284 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law may allow the creditor to render the transaction ineffective for enforcement purposes.

Under the current Article 278, amended as of 25 December 2025, gratuitous transactions within the relevant one-year period and certain transactions with relatives or persons sharing the household receive particular scrutiny, including examination of whether real-value consideration was actually provided.

Article 280 separately addresses intentional creditor prejudice and may reach transactions where the debtor acted to harm creditors and the transferee knew or should have known of that intention, provided the statutory enforcement requirements are satisfied.

If the property passes to later purchasers, good-faith purchasers are protected, but bad-faith subsequent transferees may still be pursued. Recent 2026 Court of Cassation decisions emphasise that bad faith must be determined through concrete facts such as transfer patterns, ongoing possession, banking relationships and the parties’ real economic connection.

Where the asset has already been disposed of, the creditor may in appropriate circumstances pursue the transferee for its replacement value under Article 283 rather than abandoning the case.

And where the transfer was never genuine at all, TBK Article 19 simulation provides a separate legal route with different procedural requirements. The Court of Cassation continues to distinguish carefully between statutory avoidance and simulation, while allowing Article 283/1 to be applied by analogy to grant the creditor attachment and sale rights in qualifying simulation cases.

The practical rule is therefore simple:

Putting an asset in someone else’s name does not necessarily remove it from the creditor’s reach.

The decisive questions are:

When did the debt arise?

Why was the asset transferred?

Was genuine value paid?

Did the third party know what was happening?

Where is the asset now?

and ultimately:

Can the creditor still follow the asset—or its value—into the hands of the transferee?