Crypto assets have created a new category of dispute in divorce litigation. A spouse may have no real estate, securities or significant bank balance in their name, yet may control Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins or other digital assets worth millions of Turkish lira.
The practical difficulty is obvious: traditional assets are normally connected to registries, banks or financial institutions. Crypto assets can be transferred between digital wallets within minutes, held through foreign exchanges, converted into stablecoins, moved to self-custody wallets or transferred to addresses that reveal no owner’s name.
This does not mean, however, that crypto assets fall outside the Turkish matrimonial property regime.
Under Turkish law, the decisive questions are not whether an asset is physical or digital, but whether it has an economic value, when and how it was acquired, whether it belongs to one of the spouses, and whether it existed when the matrimonial property regime ended.
Following the amendments introduced by Law No. 7518, the Capital Markets Law expressly defines a crypto asset as an intangible asset that can be electronically created and stored using distributed ledger technology or similar technology and that can represent value or rights.
Accordingly, crypto assets can constitute relevant property for the purposes of divorce-related matrimonial property claims.
The real legal battle is therefore usually not whether cryptocurrency can be considered property, but rather:
Where is the crypto, who controls it, when was it acquired, where did the purchase money come from, and what happened to it before or after the divorce proceedings began?
1. Are Crypto Assets Included in the Matrimonial Property Regime in Türkiye?
Unless the spouses have chosen another matrimonial property regime by agreement, the statutory regime under Turkish law is the participation in acquired property regime (edinilmiş mallara katılma rejimi). Article 202 of the Turkish Civil Code establishes this as the default regime.
Under Article 219 of the Turkish Civil Code, property acquired by a spouse for consideration during the continuation of the matrimonial property regime constitutes acquired property. The provision includes, among other things, earnings from work, income generated by personal property and assets replacing acquired property.
There is therefore no principled reason to exclude Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT or another crypto asset simply because it exists on a blockchain rather than in a conventional bank or securities account.
For example, assume that a husband earns TRY 2,000,000 during the marriage and uses TRY 1,000,000 of those earnings to purchase Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin will normally have been financed through acquired property. The fact that the money was converted from Turkish lira into Bitcoin does not automatically transform it into personal property.
The economic source of the investment remains crucial.
2. Crypto Purchased Before Marriage May Be Personal Property
The result may be different where the spouse already owned the crypto assets before the matrimonial property regime began.
Article 220 of the Turkish Civil Code provides that assets owned before the beginning of the matrimonial property regime, as well as assets subsequently acquired through inheritance or gratuitous acquisition, are personal property. Assets replacing personal property are also treated as personal property.
Suppose a spouse purchased 5 Bitcoin in 2018, married in 2022 and still owns those same Bitcoin when divorce proceedings begin.
The fact that the value of the Bitcoin increased dramatically during the marriage does not, by itself, necessarily transform the underlying asset into acquired property.
The more difficult questions arise where the asset has been traded repeatedly.
If Bitcoin owned before marriage is sold for USDT, the USDT is then used to purchase Ethereum, and the Ethereum is subsequently transferred between several wallets, the spouse claiming personal-property status should be prepared to prove the chain of substitution.
This is where blockchain records may actually become useful.
Although a wallet does not disclose the legal identity of its owner, blockchain transactions can provide a chronological and technically verifiable history of transfers between addresses.
3. The Presumption in Favour of Acquired Property Is Extremely Important
A spouse who merely claims that the cryptocurrency “was mine before the marriage” may face a serious evidentiary problem.
Article 222 of the Turkish Civil Code provides that a person claiming that a particular asset belongs to one spouse must prove that assertion. More importantly, all assets of a spouse are presumed to be acquired property unless proven otherwise.
This rule may become particularly powerful in cryptocurrency disputes.
If a spouse is shown to have TRY 10 million worth of crypto assets but cannot establish:
- when the assets were purchased;
- how they were financed;
- whether they resulted from an inheritance or gift;
- whether the same assets existed before marriage; or
- whether they replaced previously owned personal property,
the statutory presumption may work against the spouse asserting that the crypto constitutes personal property.
Transaction histories, exchange statements and bank records may therefore determine the outcome.
4. When Does the Matrimonial Property Regime End?
Timing is especially important because crypto assets can change dramatically in value within days.
Under Article 225 of the Turkish Civil Code, where the marriage is terminated by divorce, the matrimonial property regime ends retroactively as of the date on which the divorce proceedings were filed.
Consider the following example.
The divorce action is filed on 1 March 2026.
On that date, the spouse owns:
- 3 BTC;
- 40 ETH; and
- 150,000 USDT.
The spouse transfers all of these assets to another wallet on 15 March 2026.
The transfer occurring after the filing of the divorce action does not necessarily eliminate the assets from the matrimonial property calculation. The critical inquiry is whether they existed when the matrimonial property regime ended.
For this reason, identifying the spouse’s portfolio as close as possible to the divorce filing date is one of the most important tasks in crypto-related matrimonial property litigation.
5. How Can a Lawyer Discover Whether a Spouse Owns Cryptocurrency?
This is the central practical question.
A lawyer should rarely begin with the blockchain itself. In most cases, the most effective starting point is the fiat money trail.
Cryptocurrency normally enters a person’s portfolio through a bank or payment transaction.
A practical investigation may therefore examine bank statements for payments made to domestic or foreign cryptocurrency platforms, repeated transfers in round amounts, payments referencing exchanges, incoming withdrawals from crypto platforms, or unexplained transfers immediately before the divorce.
Once a specific exchange is identified, the court can be asked to obtain information concerning the relevant customer account.
This has become significantly more important following Türkiye’s new crypto regulatory framework.
The SPK’s 2025 secondary legislation regulates cryptocurrency platforms, custody providers, customer assets, transaction systems, transfer procedures and record-keeping.
The regulatory framework also provides that money transfers to platforms are generally conducted through bank accounts belonging to the customer. This creates an important evidentiary bridge between traditional banking records and cryptocurrency activity.
6. Court Orders to Turkish Crypto Exchanges
Where there is evidence that a spouse used a Turkish crypto platform, counsel should consider requesting that the Family Court issue a writ to the relevant platform.
Depending on the circumstances, the requested records may include the customer’s:
account-opening and identity information, current and historical crypto balances, transaction history, deposits and withdrawals, TRY deposits and withdrawals, wallet addresses used for external transfers, transaction hashes, dates and times of transfers and other account records relevant to establishing ownership and movement of the assets.
The request should be specific.
A broad request asking whether “the defendant owns cryptocurrency” may produce a less useful answer than a technically precise request covering historical balances and transfers during a defined period.
This distinction is crucial because the spouse may have already emptied the exchange account.
A current balance of zero does not mean that there were no crypto assets during the marriage.
7. MKK and the Crypto Asset Central Registry System May Become a Major Discovery Tool
Türkiye’s crypto regulatory infrastructure has changed substantially.
The Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu has established the Kripto Varlık Merkezi Kayıt Sistemi (KVMKS). The system is designed to record transactions and balances maintained by crypto-asset service providers and to reconcile platform balances with custody institutions. MKK also states that investors can monitor crypto balances through the e-YATIRIMCI infrastructure.
By July 2026, MKK had also begun publishing market information derived from data reported to KVMKS, reflecting the increasing operational use of the system.
For matrimonial property practitioners, this development is significant.
Where legally and technically available in the individual proceeding, a carefully drafted judicial information request directed to relevant regulated institutions may provide a substantially broader picture than sending separate speculative requests to numerous exchanges.
However, KVMKS should not be treated as a universal global cryptocurrency registry. Foreign exchanges, decentralised protocols and purely self-custodied assets may remain outside the practical reach of this domestic infrastructure.
8. The Civil Procedure Code Can Be Used to Obtain Electronic Records
Crypto cases are ultimately evidence cases.
Article 219 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure requires parties to submit documents in their possession on which they or the opposing party rely and expressly contemplates electronic documents.
Article 221 is equally important. Where a document held by a third person or institution is necessary to prove an allegation, the court may order that third party or institution to produce it.
These provisions provide a procedural foundation for requesting relevant records from institutions such as regulated crypto platforms, banks and other entities holding relevant documentation.
The request should nevertheless be proportionate and connected to concrete allegations. Courts are considerably more likely to engage with a request supported by bank transfers, screenshots, known exchange accounts, wallet addresses or transaction hashes than with an unrestricted request to investigate every possible crypto account belonging to a spouse.
9. What If the Crypto Has Been Transferred to a Private Wallet?
This is more difficult, but not necessarily fatal.
Suppose records obtained from an exchange show that the spouse purchased 4 BTC and later withdrew them to the Bitcoin address:
bc1q...
The exchange account establishes the connection between an identified person and the withdrawal transaction.
From that point onward, blockchain analysis may trace subsequent movements of those Bitcoin.
A blockchain does not normally reveal that “Wallet X belongs to Mr A.” It shows transactions between addresses.
The evidentiary objective is therefore to link identity to wallet control.
That connection may be demonstrated through a combination of evidence, including exchange withdrawal records, transaction hashes, repeated transfers between a known exchange account and the relevant wallet, records found on lawfully examined devices, the spouse’s admissions or correspondence, and other corroborating financial evidence.
Once the initial wallet is attributed to the spouse with sufficient evidence, subsequent on-chain transactions can become highly relevant.
10. Foreign Crypto Exchanges Create a Different Problem
A spouse seeking to conceal cryptocurrency may use a foreign platform that has no meaningful operational presence in Türkiye.
A Turkish court order sent directly to such a platform may not always be sufficient to obtain records.
The strategy then depends on the country in which the service provider is established, the platform’s legal structure and disclosure policy, applicable international judicial assistance mechanisms and the availability of parallel proceedings abroad.
However, even where the foreign exchange itself does not cooperate immediately, Turkish bank records may reveal the original fiat transfers, while blockchain analysis may reveal subsequent transactions.
The investigation should therefore combine banking evidence, platform evidence and blockchain evidence, rather than relying exclusively on one source.
11. Stablecoins Are Particularly Important in Asset Concealment Cases
Practitioners should not focus exclusively on Bitcoin.
USDT, USDC and similar stablecoins may be even more important in matrimonial property disputes.
A spouse attempting to remove funds from the traditional banking system may convert Turkish lira or foreign currency into stablecoins and transfer them to a private wallet without maintaining exposure to Bitcoin’s price volatility.
A bank account that falls from TRY 15 million to almost zero immediately before a divorce should therefore not automatically lead to the conclusion that the money was spent.
The funds may simply have changed form.
The correct inquiry is:
Where did the money go?
12. Transfers Intended to Reduce the Other Spouse’s Participation Claim
Crypto transfers may also trigger the rules concerning assets to be added back into the matrimonial estate.
Article 229 of the Turkish Civil Code provides, among other things, that certain gratuitous transfers made without the other spouse’s consent during the year preceding termination of the regime and transfers made during the matrimonial property regime with the intention of reducing the other spouse’s participation claim are added back into the acquired property calculation.
This provision can be extremely important where cryptocurrency is transferred to relatives, friends or wallets allegedly belonging to third parties shortly before divorce.
For example:
A spouse controls 500,000 USDT.
Two months before the divorce action, the entire amount is transferred to a wallet controlled by the spouse’s brother without any identifiable consideration.
The defence that “I no longer own the cryptocurrency” should not automatically end the inquiry.
The transaction itself may become the central issue in determining whether the value should be added back to the matrimonial property calculation.
13. Can the Court Freeze Crypto Assets?
Where there is a genuine risk that crypto assets will be transferred or dissipated, temporary legal protection should be considered quickly.
Under Article 389 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, a preliminary injunction may be ordered where a change in the existing situation could make enforcement of the right substantially more difficult or impossible, or where delay could cause serious harm. Article 390 additionally requires the applicant to identify the requested measure and establish the underlying case on an approximate-proof standard.
Accordingly, where crypto assets are held through an identifiable regulated platform or custodian, counsel may consider seeking a specifically formulated interim measure preventing transfer or disposition of the relevant assets.
A generic injunction over an unidentified global blockchain wallet is much harder to implement.
There is an important difference between:
“The defendant must not dispose of 12.4 BTC held in account X at Platform Y”
and:
“Freeze all cryptocurrency owned by the defendant anywhere in the world.”
The first is technically and legally much more capable of implementation.
During the marriage, Article 199 of the Turkish Civil Code may also be relevant where restriction of one spouse’s power of disposal is necessary to protect the economic existence of the family or ensure performance of a financial obligation arising from the marriage. The Court of Cassation has stressed that such restrictions must be based on a concrete economic risk and remain proportionate.
14. How Should Cryptocurrency Be Valued?
Crypto valuation may become one of the most disputed issues in the case.
Article 232 of the Turkish Civil Code provides that assets are valued according to their market value for liquidation purposes. Article 235 provides that acquired assets existing when the matrimonial property regime ended are taken into account at their value at the time of liquidation.
That rule creates a practical problem for highly volatile assets.
Bitcoin might be worth USD 50,000 when the divorce is filed and USD 120,000 when the matrimonial property case is decided.
For this reason, an expert report should clearly state:
the quantity of each asset existing at the relevant date, the blockchain or platform on which it was held, the valuation date, the pricing source, the relevant exchange rate and, where necessary, the exact valuation time.
Using an unspecified “internet cryptocurrency price” is inadequate in a high-value dispute.
15. Staking Rewards, Mining Income and Other Crypto Returns
Not every crypto-related value should necessarily receive the same classification.
A crypto asset acquired before marriage may constitute personal property. However, Article 219 expressly includes income derived from personal property among acquired property.
This distinction may become particularly relevant for staking rewards, lending returns and similar yield-generating arrangements.
For example, the underlying Ethereum may have been acquired before marriage and therefore remain personal property, while rewards generated from staking during the matrimonial regime may require a separate analysis as income generated by personal property.
Mining activity may raise different questions because newly generated cryptocurrency may represent the product of labour, capital and business activity during marriage.
Accordingly, lawyers should avoid treating every token found in the same wallet as having the same matrimonial-property character.
16. A Practical Crypto Discovery Strategy for Divorce Cases
In a substantial matrimonial property case, a coordinated investigation should ordinarily focus on the following:
- Obtain comprehensive bank records covering the marriage and the period surrounding the divorce.
- Identify payments to cryptocurrency exchanges and incoming transfers from crypto platforms.
- Seek court orders for historical—not merely current—accounts and balances at identified platforms.
- Consider whether KVMKS/MKK records can assist in identifying regulated domestic holdings.
- Request deposit, withdrawal, transaction and external wallet-address histories.
- Obtain transaction hashes whenever available.
- Map identified addresses using blockchain transaction data.
- Determine whether transfers lead to another centralised exchange, self-custody wallet, stablecoin, bridge or decentralised protocol.
- Compare large crypto transfers with the chronology of marital conflict and the divorce filing.
- Seek an interim measure immediately where there is concrete evidence of a risk of dissipation.
- Analyse separately whether each asset is acquired property, personal property, income from personal property or a replacement asset.
- Examine suspicious pre-divorce transfers under Article 229.
- Establish the exact quantity of crypto existing when the property regime ended.
- Use an expert capable of explaining both blockchain tracing and valuation methodology.
The strongest cases are built from several sources simultaneously.
A bank transfer proves the funding.
An exchange record establishes the customer’s identity.
A withdrawal record provides the blockchain address.
The blockchain establishes the subsequent transaction history.
Together, those records may transform what initially appears to be an anonymous digital asset into a traceable matrimonial property claim.
Conclusion: Crypto Is Difficult to Hide, but Easy to Move
The misconception that cryptocurrency is invisible to divorce courts is increasingly outdated.
Crypto assets can certainly create evidentiary problems, particularly where they are held through foreign exchanges or private wallets. Yet the blockchain itself creates a permanent transaction record, while Türkiye’s regulated crypto ecosystem increasingly generates KYC, banking, custody and central reporting data capable of connecting those transactions to identifiable individuals.
The real challenge is speed.
A spouse who suspects undisclosed cryptocurrency should not wait until the end of the property litigation to investigate it. Bank records, exchange records, KVMKS data where available, wallet addresses and blockchain transactions should be examined at an early stage, particularly where there is a risk that assets are being transferred abroad or into self-custody.
For Turkish matrimonial property litigation, the most effective principle is therefore simple:
Do not ask only what assets the spouse owns today. Reconstruct what the spouse owned when the matrimonial property regime ended, how those assets were acquired, and where they were subsequently transferred.
In high-value divorce cases, that distinction may determine whether millions of lira in crypto assets disappear from the apparent balance sheet—or are successfully brought back into the matrimonial property calculation.
No Responses