A cryptocurrency investor may discover one day that everything appears normal in the account—Bitcoin, USDT, Ethereum or Turkish lira balances are visible—but withdrawals have suddenly been disabled. The platform may display messages such as “withdrawals suspended,” “account under review,” “risk control restriction,” or “compliance investigation.” In some cases, customer support provides no meaningful explanation for days or even weeks.
For users holding substantial amounts of money, the central question is straightforward:
Can a crypto exchange legally freeze a user’s account, and how can the user recover the money or crypto assets?
Under Turkish law, the answer depends primarily on why the account was frozen.
Following the amendments introduced by Law No. 7518 in 2024, crypto-asset service providers became subject to a much more detailed regulatory framework under Capital Markets Law No. 6362. The Capital Markets Board of Türkiye (“CMB” or “SPK”) subsequently issued two major communiqués on 13 March 2025 regulating crypto-asset service providers. In addition, the Ministry of Treasury and Finance introduced strengthened anti-money-laundering rules for crypto transactions in June 2025.
Therefore, an account restriction that would previously have been analysed primarily as a contractual dispute may now involve capital markets law, anti-money-laundering rules, criminal procedure and commercial litigation at the same time.
1. The First Question: Who Actually Froze the Account?
The most important legal distinction is whether the restriction was imposed:
by the crypto exchange itself, or
because of an order or legal obligation originating from MASAK, a public prosecutor, a criminal court or another competent authority.
The distinction is crucial.
If a public authority has ordered the seizure or restriction of the assets, the exchange generally cannot simply release the funds because the customer sends a demand letter.
If, however, the platform has imposed an internal compliance or security restriction without a binding public-authority order, the legality and proportionality of that restriction can be challenged directly against the platform.
Before starting litigation, the user should therefore request a written explanation identifying, to the extent legally disclosable:
- whether the restriction results from an internal platform decision or an external authority,
- which transactions are restricted,
- whether fiat withdrawals, crypto withdrawals or the entire account are affected,
- which contractual or regulatory provision is relied upon,
- whether additional KYC or source-of-funds documents are required.
This distinction frequently determines the entire legal strategy.
2. Not Every Withdrawal Delay Is an Unlawful Freeze
One of the most important regulatory changes came into force on 28 June 2025 through MASAK General Communiqué No. 29.
Under the communiqué, crypto platforms are required, in certain circumstances, to delay crypto-asset withdrawal transactions. A crypto transfer must generally take place at least 48 hours after the relevant purchase, exchange or deposit transaction, while the waiting period for a customer’s first crypto withdrawal is at least 72 hours.
The communiqué also introduced transaction limits for certain crypto assets designed to maintain a stable value and requires platforms to obtain transaction explanations for crypto transfers.
Consequently, a customer who bought crypto assets today and immediately attempts to transfer them to an external wallet may encounter a restriction that is not an arbitrary decision by the exchange at all.
A legal assessment should therefore distinguish a statutory holding period from an indefinite account freeze.
A 48-hour or 72-hour regulatory restriction is fundamentally different from an exchange preventing a customer from accessing hundreds of thousands of dollars for several months without providing an adequate legal explanation.
3. The Exchange Cannot Simply Rely on Its User Agreement to Keep the Money
Capital Markets Law No. 6362 now expressly regulates contractual relations between crypto-asset service providers and their customers.
Article 35/C provides an especially important protection: contractual provisions that remove or restrict the crypto-asset service provider’s liability towards customers are invalid.
Platforms must also establish internal mechanisms capable of effectively handling customer objections and complaints.
This has significant practical consequences.
A platform cannot necessarily justify an indefinite freeze merely by pointing to a broadly drafted clause such as:
“The company may suspend any account at its sole discretion for any period it considers necessary.”
Such contractual clauses must still comply with mandatory legislation and the regulatory obligations applicable to crypto-asset service providers.
Security controls, anti-money-laundering obligations and fraud prevention may justify temporary restrictions. However, an unlimited contractual discretion to prevent customers from accessing their assets indefinitely may become legally vulnerable, particularly where the customer has completed the requested verification procedures and there is no continuing judicial or administrative measure.
4. Customer Assets Are Legally Separate from the Exchange’s Own Assets
Another critical protection introduced by the new regulatory regime concerns ownership and segregation of customer assets.
Capital Markets Law Article 35/C provides that customers’ cash and crypto assets must be kept separate from the assets of the crypto-asset service provider.
Even more importantly, customer assets held by a crypto-asset service provider cannot generally be seized because of the provider’s own debts, pledged for those debts, included in the provider’s bankruptcy estate or subjected to interim measures because of liabilities belonging to the provider itself.
This rule can become extremely important if the problem is not merely an individual account restriction but financial distress at the exchange.
Suppose, for example, that a platform owes TRY 500 million to its own commercial creditors while simultaneously holding Bitcoin and cash belonging to thousands of customers.
Those customer assets should not legally become the exchange’s own assets merely because they are technically held through the platform infrastructure.
The principle of segregation significantly strengthens a customer’s legal position when demanding the return or transfer of assets.
It does not, however, eliminate practical risks where there is fraud, missing reserves, unauthorized transfers or insolvency.
5. Crypto Platforms May Be Liable for Failure to Return Customer Assets
The amended Capital Markets Law goes further than merely regulating licensing.
The statutory framework provides for liability where crypto-asset service providers engage in unlawful activities or fail to meet their obligations concerning the payment of cash or delivery of crypto assets. The law also establishes significant liability in relation to losses caused by operation of information systems, cyberattacks, information-security breaches and certain acts of personnel.
Therefore, a user whose account contains identifiable assets does not necessarily have to accept the explanation:
“Your account is under review; please wait indefinitely.”
If the platform has no continuing legal basis to withhold the assets and nevertheless refuses withdrawal or delivery, the dispute may eventually give rise to a claim for:
delivery of the crypto assets, payment of the monetary balance, compensation for losses, or a combination of these remedies.
The appropriate formulation depends on whether the account contains fiat currency, identifiable crypto units, assets that have already been sold or crypto assets whose market value has substantially changed during the restriction period.
6. What Should the User Do Before Filing a Lawsuit?
Evidence preservation is one of the most important parts of a crypto dispute.
A user should not wait until the platform closes the account or access disappears.
Screenshots alone may not always be sufficient.
The user should preserve account statements, cryptocurrency balances, trade history, deposit records, withdrawal requests, wallet addresses, blockchain transaction hashes, bank transfer receipts, support ticket numbers, e-mails, SMS notifications, KYC requests, source-of-funds requests and copies of the user agreement applicable when the account was opened.
If the platform states that a particular withdrawal was rejected or cancelled, evidence of the date, amount and wallet address should also be retained.
This becomes particularly important when compensation is later sought for financial loss allegedly caused by an unlawful restriction.
The claimant must generally be able to demonstrate not only that the restriction existed, but also what assets were held, what withdrawal was requested, when it was requested, why it was rejected and what financial damage resulted from the refusal.
7. Send a Formal Legal Notice to the Exchange
Where no judicial seizure order exists and the platform continues to restrict withdrawals, a formal demand is usually an important next step.
The demand should identify the account and disputed balance and request:
the immediate removal of the restriction,
delivery or transfer of the crypto assets,
payment of any fiat balance,
written disclosure of the legal basis for continuing the restriction insofar as disclosure is legally permissible,
and preservation of all electronic records relating to the account.
In Turkey, depending on the circumstances, a notice can be sent through a notary, KEP or another provable written method.
The wording is important.
A weak request saying “please open my account” may be less useful in subsequent litigation than a properly drafted notice establishing that the platform has been formally placed in default regarding an identifiable payment or delivery obligation.
8. What If the Exchange Says the Account Is Under an AML or MASAK Review?
Crypto exchanges are subject to strict customer-identification and anti-money-laundering obligations.
A platform may therefore request documents explaining the economic source of funds, transaction history, bank-account information or the purpose of transfers.
The quickest legal strategy is not always immediate litigation.
Where the request is genuinely related to KYC or AML compliance, supplying clear documentary evidence concerning the origin of the funds may resolve the restriction more quickly than starting court proceedings.
Typical documents may include salary records, company distributions, invoices, bank statements, sale agreements, inheritance documents or evidence showing how the crypto assets were originally acquired.
However, cooperation does not mean accepting an indefinite restriction.
If the customer provides the requested documentation and the exchange continues to prevent access without explaining what further compliance issue exists, the proportionality and legality of the restriction should be reassessed.
It should also be remembered that anti-money-laundering legislation may restrict what a platform is permitted to disclose about suspicious-transaction reporting. A customer’s inability to obtain all details therefore does not automatically prove wrongdoing by the exchange.
9. What If the Assets Were Frozen by a Prosecutor or Court?
The strategy changes completely when the exchange is implementing a criminal-procedure measure.
Capital Markets Law expressly recognizes that judicial and administrative requests concerning customers’ crypto assets and cash may be implemented through crypto-asset service providers.
If the assets have been seized in a criminal investigation, sending repeated withdrawal requests to the exchange usually does not solve the problem.
The user’s lawyer must determine:
which prosecutor’s office or court issued the measure,
the investigation or case number,
the assets covered by the measure,
the legal grounds for seizure,
and whether the requirements for maintaining the measure still exist.
The appropriate application should then be directed to the authority responsible for the seizure, including, where legally available, a request or objection seeking removal or limitation of the measure.
For example, if TRY 3 million entered the account through legitimate property-sale proceeds but the entire crypto portfolio was subsequently frozen because one transfer was considered suspicious, the scope and proportionality of the measure may become an important part of the legal challenge.
A civil lawsuit against the exchange itself cannot ordinarily force the exchange to disregard a binding criminal seizure order.
10. A Complaint Can Also Be Filed with the Capital Markets Board
Crypto-asset service providers are now within the regulatory and supervisory framework of the Capital Markets Board.
The CMB accepts complaints concerning alleged violations of capital markets legislation and recommends that complainants provide concrete details concerning the relevant transaction, institution, date, violated right and supporting documents. However, the CMB itself explains that its administrative review concerns regulatory compliance and that it does not directly award compensation for the investor’s losses.
This distinction is important.
A CMB complaint can create regulatory pressure and may cause the platform’s practices to be examined, but it should not automatically be regarded as a substitute for a civil claim seeking TRY 5 million or the delivery of 10 Bitcoin.
Regulatory proceedings and private-law recovery proceedings can therefore serve different purposes.
11. Check the Platform’s Regulatory Status
Before beginning proceedings, users should also verify whether the platform appears on the CMB’s crypto-asset service provider lists.
This is especially important because the regulatory transition is still continuing.
The CMB expressly states that inclusion in its current “Faaliyette Bulunanlar Listesi” is not by itself proof that the company has been fully authorized under the applicable legislation.
In March 2026, the CMB also announced that deadlines concerning authorization and custody arrangements for companies on the transitional list would be determined after authorized custody institutions begin providing sufficiently widespread services.
Therefore, statements such as “the exchange is on the SPK list, so there is no legal risk” can be misleading.
The precise regulatory status of the company should be checked.
12. Can the User Sue the Crypto Exchange?
Yes.
Where the exchange has no continuing lawful basis for withholding the assets, court proceedings may be available to demand payment, delivery and, depending on the facts, compensation.
The exact cause of action should be structured according to the factual scenario.
For example, if the account contains TRY 2 million and the platform refuses a valid cash withdrawal, the claim may primarily concern payment of a monetary receivable.
If the customer owns 5 Bitcoin which remain recorded in the account but cannot be transferred, it may be preferable to seek delivery of the relevant crypto assets and to formulate alternative monetary claims where necessary.
If the platform’s conduct caused additional losses, compensation may also be sought if the damage and causal connection can be proven.
This distinction becomes especially important in volatile markets.
A claimant arguing that Bitcoin fell or increased substantially while the account was unlawfully blocked must establish the financial consequence of the restriction rather than relying merely on hypothetical trading opportunities.
Courts generally distinguish demonstrable losses from purely speculative profits that the claimant says might have been earned.
13. Which Court Has Jurisdiction?
This area has undergone an important transformation.
Older Turkish decisions reflected differing views as to whether disputes between individual crypto investors and exchanges should be heard by civil courts, consumer courts or commercial courts.
The amendments introduced by Law No. 7518 have significantly changed the legal landscape.
Recent Regional Court of Appeal decisions have treated disputes arising from crypto-asset platforms as commercial disputes following the inclusion of crypto assets and crypto-asset service providers within the Capital Markets Law framework.
For example, the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal, 8th Civil Chamber, in its decision dated 21 January 2026, File No. 2025/2006 and Decision No. 2026/152, concluded that a dispute concerning losses arising from a crypto account constituted a commercial dispute and designated the Commercial Court of First Instance as the competent court.
Similarly, the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal has reached comparable conclusions in recent post-reform cases.
Accordingly, for disputes arising under the current regulatory regime, the Commercial Court of First Instance is increasingly emerging as the principal forum.
Nevertheless, procedural classification should still be evaluated according to the precise claim and date of the underlying transaction rather than assumed automatically.
Where the case qualifies as a commercial monetary or compensation dispute, the requirement of mandatory mediation before filing the substantive action should also be considered.
14. Can an Interim Injunction Be Requested?
In high-value crypto disputes, waiting for a final judgment may create significant risk.
The platform may enter liquidation, assets may be transferred, corporate circumstances may change or relevant account evidence may become harder to obtain.
Depending on the facts, the claimant can therefore assess whether an interim injunction is necessary to preserve the existing legal and factual situation.
Such a request should not merely state that the investor is worried.
It should demonstrate a concrete risk and explain why failure to secure the assets or evidence could make enforcement of a future judgment significantly more difficult.
The objective of interim relief will often be preservation rather than obtaining the entire result of the main lawsuit in advance.
15. What If the Crypto Exchange Is Located Abroad?
Recovery becomes more complicated where the customer uses a foreign exchange with no meaningful establishment in Turkey.
Law No. 7518 introduced significant restrictions regarding foreign crypto-asset service providers targeting persons resident in Turkey. The legislation required foreign providers carrying out activities directed at Turkish residents to terminate those activities within the statutory transition framework.
For a foreign platform dispute, the lawyer must additionally investigate:
the legal entity that entered into the customer agreement,
the governing-law clause,
the jurisdiction or arbitration clause,
the country in which the company and its assets are located,
whether the platform has a Turkish affiliate,
and whether a Turkish judgment could practically be enforced abroad.
A judgment has little economic value if it cannot be enforced against identifiable assets.
Therefore, international crypto recovery cases should be approached as an asset-recovery and enforcement problem, not merely as a question of obtaining a judgment.
16. A Practical Recovery Strategy
When a substantial amount is blocked on a crypto exchange, a practical legal strategy generally follows seven stages:
- Determine the source of the restriction. Establish whether it is a statutory waiting period, internal compliance measure, MASAK-related restriction or judicial seizure.
- Preserve the evidence immediately. Download transaction history, balances, communications, wallet addresses, bank transfers and contractual documents.
- Complete legitimate KYC and source-of-funds requests. Do not allow an easily curable verification deficiency to become the platform’s defence.
- Serve a formal legal demand. Request release or delivery of the assets and require the platform to identify the lawful basis of the restriction to the extent disclosure is permitted.
- Consider a CMB complaint. Particularly where the restriction appears to reflect a systematic or regulatory violation.
- Challenge judicial seizure before the competent criminal authority where applicable. Do not sue the exchange for complying with a binding order without first addressing the underlying measure.
- Commence the appropriate private-law recovery process where the platform itself is wrongfully withholding assets. Depending on the claim, this may include commercial mediation, litigation for payment or delivery, compensation and appropriate interim relief.
This sequence is usually more effective than simply sending dozens of messages to customer support.
Conclusion: A Crypto Exchange Cannot Hold Customer Funds Indefinitely Without a Legal Basis
Turkey’s crypto-asset market is no longer operating in the largely unregulated environment that existed several years ago.
Following Law No. 7518, the 2025 CMB communiqués and strengthened MASAK regulations, crypto platforms now operate within an increasingly detailed regulatory framework.
This framework gives exchanges legitimate reasons to temporarily restrict certain transactions for security, customer verification and anti-money-laundering purposes.
But regulation does not give a platform unlimited authority over customer property.
Capital Markets Law expressly recognizes customer rights, invalidates contractual provisions that attempt to eliminate the provider’s liability, requires internal complaint mechanisms and separates customer assets from the exchange’s own property. The statutory framework also imposes responsibility on crypto-asset service providers for certain unlawful activities and failures to deliver customer cash or crypto assets.
Accordingly, when an exchange blocks an account, the correct legal question is not simply:
“Can crypto exchanges freeze accounts?”
The real questions are:
Who imposed the restriction? On what legal basis? For how long? What documents have been requested? Is there a judicial seizure order? And does the platform still have a lawful reason to prevent the customer from withdrawing the assets?
Once those questions are answered, a substantial crypto balance that appears to be “stuck” on an exchange may be recoverable through a combination of regulatory applications, formal notices, criminal-procedure remedies and commercial litigation.
For investors holding significant crypto assets, acting early is particularly important. In crypto disputes, evidence, account records and the legal basis of the restriction should be secured before the dispute turns from a temporary withdrawal problem into a much more difficult asset-recovery case.
This article is intended for general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. Each crypto-asset dispute should be assessed according to the relevant platform, account records, transaction history, contractual documents and any judicial or administrative measures affecting the assets.
No Responses