When a Crypto Exchange Freezes the Exit: Can Users Claim Compensation for a Blocked Transfer in Turkey?

A crypto investor opens an exchange account, purchases digital assets and later decides to transfer those assets to another exchange or a private wallet. The transfer request is submitted, but instead of receiving a blockchain transaction ID, the user sees a message such as “withdrawals temporarily suspended,” “account under review,” “risk control,” “compliance review,” or “transfer restricted.”

Hours may turn into days or even weeks. During that period, the price of the crypto asset may collapse, an arbitrage opportunity may disappear, a payment deadline may be missed, or the investor may simply lose access to assets worth millions of Turkish lira.

The critical legal question is therefore straightforward:

If a crypto exchange prevents or delays a customer’s transfer, can the customer claim compensation for the resulting loss?

Under Turkish law, the answer is yes in certain circumstances — but not every transfer restriction creates liability.

The decisive issue is whether the exchange had a lawful and proportionate reason for stopping the transaction and whether the customer can prove that the delay caused an identifiable financial loss.

1. Crypto Exchanges Are Now Directly Regulated Under Turkish Capital Markets Law

The legal environment changed significantly with Law No. 7518, which amended Capital Markets Law No. 6362 in 2024.

Crypto-asset service providers operating within the Turkish regulatory framework became subject to the supervision and regulation of the Capital Markets Board of Türkiye (“CMB” or “SPK”). The regulatory framework was further developed through two major communiqués published on 13 March 2025:

• Communiqué No. III-35/B.1 on the Establishment and Operating Principles of Crypto-Asset Service Providers; and
• Communiqué No. III-35/B.2 on the Operating Principles and Capital Adequacy of Crypto-Asset Service Providers.

The CMB expressly confirms that these regulations cover, among other matters, the trading, custody and transfer of crypto assets.

This is important because a dispute between a customer and a Turkish crypto platform can no longer be evaluated merely by referring to the platform’s own user agreement.

The exchange must comply simultaneously with:

• Capital Markets Law No. 6362;
• CMB regulations;
• MASAK anti-money-laundering rules;
• the Turkish Code of Obligations;
• its customer framework agreement;
• information-security requirements; and
• applicable court or administrative orders.

A clause in a user agreement giving the exchange unlimited discretion to block withdrawals therefore does not automatically protect the exchange from liability.

Indeed, Article 35/C of the Capital Markets Law expressly provides that contractual provisions excluding or limiting a crypto-asset service provider’s liability toward its customers are invalid.

2. A Crypto Exchange Is Allowed to Stop Certain Transfers

The fact that a transfer has been stopped does not automatically mean that the exchange has acted unlawfully.

Crypto exchanges are subject to extensive AML, security and regulatory obligations.

Therefore, there are several situations in which a temporary restriction may be legally justified.

Mandatory AML and MASAK Controls

The first area is anti-money-laundering compliance.

MASAK General Communiqué No. 29 introduced enhanced measures applicable to crypto-asset service providers.

For certain crypto withdrawals falling within the relevant regulatory categories, platforms must wait at least 48 hours following the purchase, exchange or deposit of the crypto asset before carrying out the transfer. For the customer’s first crypto withdrawal, the minimum period may be 72 hours.

These rules are especially important in compensation disputes.

A customer generally cannot argue that a platform committed a contractual breach merely because the platform complied with a mandatory statutory waiting period.

At the same time, these regulations should not be interpreted as giving exchanges an unlimited right to hold customer assets.

A regulatory waiting period of 48 or 72 hours cannot automatically justify a restriction lasting several weeks.

Suspicion of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing

A different situation arises where a specific transaction is suspected of being connected with money laundering or terrorist financing.

Under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549, qualifying transactions may be suspended or prevented from being executed for up to seven business days in order to analyse the suspicion and, where necessary, refer the matter to the competent authorities.

Where an exchange is acting pursuant to a legally binding MASAK decision, judicial order or other competent authority instruction, bringing a compensation claim directly against the exchange becomes substantially more difficult.

The distinction is crucial:

“We blocked the transaction because the competent authority ordered us to do so” is legally very different from “our internal risk department decided to block your account indefinitely.”

Security and Cybersecurity Risks

A transfer may also legitimately be delayed when there are indications of:

• account takeover;
• compromised credentials;
• SIM-swap fraud;
• suspicious IP access;
• abnormal withdrawal patterns;
• compromised wallet infrastructure;
• suspected phishing; or
• attempted unauthorised access.

The CMB’s transfer regulations require access controls and security mechanisms to be completed before a transfer is executed. Transfer procedures must also comply with MASAK regulations and multi-factor authentication requirements.

A short security hold designed to protect a customer from theft may therefore be lawful.

The situation changes, however, where the exchange cannot demonstrate any concrete security incident, repeatedly requests the same documents or leaves the restriction in place long after the supposed security concern has disappeared.

3. When Can the Exchange Become Liable?

The strongest legal basis is found in Article 99/B of the Capital Markets Law.

The provision states that crypto-asset service providers are responsible for losses resulting from their unlawful activities and from their failure to perform their obligations relating to cash payments or delivery of crypto assets.

This provision can become highly relevant where a platform refuses to release a customer’s crypto assets without a sufficient legal basis.

A compensation claim becomes significantly stronger where, for example:

• the mandatory AML waiting period has already expired;
• all requested KYC documents have been provided;
• there is no court, prosecutor, MASAK or administrative blocking order;
• the exchange does not identify any concrete regulatory reason for the restriction;
• withdrawals remain suspended for an excessive period;
• trading remains possible while withdrawals alone are blocked;
• customer support provides only generic automated responses;
• different departments give contradictory explanations;
• the restriction results from an internal technical or operational failure;
• the platform fails to execute an otherwise valid withdrawal instruction; or
• the exchange cannot demonstrate when or why the restriction was imposed.

In such circumstances, the restriction may constitute both a violation of the sector-specific regulatory framework and improper performance of the contractual relationship under the Turkish Code of Obligations.

4. Technical Failure Does Not Automatically Mean Compensation

There is nevertheless an important statutory limitation.

Article 99/B specifically addresses losses resulting from information systems, cyberattacks, information-security breaches and employee conduct. However, the law also states that losses arising from temporary inability to submit orders or execute transactions/transfers during interruptions occurring without fault of the service provider are not treated within the relevant liability regime.

Consequently, the mere fact that an exchange was inaccessible for thirty minutes during extraordinary network congestion will not necessarily create compensation liability.

The legal analysis should instead ask:

1. What caused the interruption?
2. Was the event foreseeable?
3. Did the platform have adequate redundancy and security systems?
4. How long did the interruption last?
5. Were all customers affected or only one account?
6. Did the platform respond reasonably?
7. Could the loss have been prevented through proper technical measures?

An exchange describing every incident as a “technical problem” will not necessarily be sufficient.

Where expert examination reveals defective infrastructure, inadequate cybersecurity or operational negligence, liability may still arise.

5. Can the Investor Claim the Loss Caused by a Price Drop?

This is usually the most disputed issue.

Suppose an investor attempts to transfer 10 BTC when Bitcoin is trading at USD 120,000.

The exchange blocks the withdrawal.

Five days later the restriction is removed, but Bitcoin is trading at USD 100,000.

The investor argues that the blocked transfer caused a USD 200,000 loss.

Can that amount automatically be claimed?

Not necessarily.

The claimant must establish a causal connection between the unlawful restriction and the financial loss.

It is not enough to say:

“The price decreased while my account was blocked.”

The investor should ideally demonstrate what would have happened if the transfer had been executed.

Relevant evidence could include:

• an already-created sell order on the destination exchange;
• correspondence showing an intended OTC sale;
• a contractual payment obligation;
• evidence of a predetermined trading strategy;
• previous transfer and trading behaviour;
• orders cancelled because the assets did not arrive;
• contemporaneous messages showing the intended transaction; or
• other objective evidence proving the purpose of the transfer.

Without such evidence, the exchange may argue that the investor might have continued holding the crypto asset even if the transfer had succeeded.

This distinction becomes particularly important when claiming loss of profit.

Turkish courts generally require hypothetical profits to be supported by sufficiently concrete evidence rather than pure speculation.

6. What Types of Damages May Be Claimed?

Depending on the circumstances, several categories of loss may potentially be claimed.

Loss in Value

Where it can be shown that the asset would have been sold immediately following the transfer, the difference between the relevant market values may form part of the compensation claim.

Lost Trading Opportunity

A customer may argue that the unlawful restriction prevented an arbitrage, hedging or liquidation transaction.

Such claims are possible but require particularly strong evidence because cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile.

Financing Costs

If the customer was forced to obtain alternative financing because assets that should have been transferable were unlawfully withheld, borrowing costs may potentially form part of the damage calculation.

Additional Transaction Costs

Fees paid to alternative platforms, conversion costs or additional transaction expenses caused directly by the restriction may also be relevant.

Failure to Deliver the Crypto Asset

In some cases, the primary claim may not even be damages.

The customer may first demand the release or delivery of the crypto assets themselves, together with compensation for losses caused by the delay.

Moral Damages

Moral damages are considerably more exceptional.

A mere financial restriction does not normally justify substantial non-pecuniary compensation. Additional facts affecting personality rights would generally be necessary.

7. The Exchange Cannot Simply Rely on Its User Agreement

Crypto exchange contracts frequently contain provisions stating that the platform may:

• suspend accounts;
• delay withdrawals;
• carry out risk checks;
• request additional documents;
• restrict services;
• suspend particular networks; or
• stop transactions for security purposes.

Such clauses have legal significance, but they are not unlimited.

Article 35/C of the Capital Markets Law expressly invalidates contractual provisions eliminating or restricting the service provider’s responsibility toward customers.

Therefore, a clause stating that:

“The exchange shall not be liable under any circumstances for losses arising from suspension of withdrawals”

cannot necessarily defeat a statutory compensation claim.

The exchange must still demonstrate that the restriction was lawful, proportionate and properly implemented.

8. Evidence Is Usually More Important Than the Initial Legal Argument

A claimant considering litigation should immediately preserve evidence.

This is particularly important because application interfaces, error messages and account statuses can change.

The following material should be collected:

• screenshots showing the account balance;
• exact date and time of the withdrawal request;
• withdrawal amount and wallet address;
• screenshots of warning or restriction messages;
• customer-support correspondence;
• emails sent by the exchange;
• KYC documents requested and submitted;
• proof of when documents were delivered;
• blockchain records;
• transaction hashes, if any;
• historical price data;
• evidence from the intended destination exchange;
• evidence of intended sale or conversion transactions; and
• the version of the user agreement applicable on the relevant date.

If litigation becomes likely, court-supervised determination of evidence (delil tespiti) may also be considered, particularly where internal system logs or technical records may later become difficult to obtain.

The platform’s internal records can be critical in determining:

• who imposed the restriction;
• the exact timestamp of the restriction;
• the risk classification assigned to the account;
• whether an authority order existed;
• when the compliance review ended; and
• why the transfer remained blocked afterward.

9. A Formal Notice Should Usually Be Sent Before Litigation

A customer facing a prolonged and unexplained restriction should avoid relying exclusively on live-chat support.

A formal written notice can request the exchange to:

1. identify the legal basis for the restriction;
2. clarify whether the restriction is based on an authority decision or internal policy;
3. execute the transfer or release the assets immediately if no legal obstacle remains;
4. preserve all account and transaction logs;
5. compensate losses resulting from the delay; and
6. confirm the reason and duration of the restriction in writing.

Depending on the case, such notice may be sent through a notary, registered electronic mail (KEP) or another legally provable method.

The notice may later become important both for establishing default and for proving that the exchange knowingly continued the restriction after being informed of the customer’s loss.

10. Should a Complaint Be Filed With the CMB?

A CMB complaint can be strategically useful where a Turkish regulated crypto-asset service provider appears to be violating regulatory obligations.

The CMB supervises crypto-asset service providers and maintains the regulatory framework governing their activities.

However, a regulatory complaint and a compensation lawsuit serve different purposes.

The CMB may investigate regulatory compliance and impose administrative measures, but a customer seeking payment of a private-law damages claim will generally still need to pursue the appropriate civil/commercial remedy.

Regulatory proceedings can nevertheless produce important evidence for subsequent litigation.

11. Which Court Has Jurisdiction?

The procedural classification of crypto disputes has recently become clearer.

In a decision dated 21 January 2026, the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal, 8th Civil Chamber, considered a compensation dispute involving a crypto platform after the 2024 amendments and determined that the dispute was an absolute commercial dispute, designating the Commercial Court of First Instance as the competent court in terms of subject-matter jurisdiction.

This decision is especially relevant because earlier cases sometimes produced disputes between civil, consumer and commercial courts.

Accordingly, for claims falling under the current Capital Markets Law framework, the Commercial Court of First Instance should be carefully considered.

Where the lawsuit concerns payment of a commercial receivable or compensation, the requirement of mandatory mediation before litigation must also be assessed.

The procedural route should nevertheless be determined according to the specific parties, transaction and relief requested rather than assumed automatically in every crypto dispute.

12. Can an Injunction Be Requested?

Waiting several years for a final judgment may be commercially meaningless where volatile digital assets are involved.

Urgent interim protection should therefore be considered.

Depending on the structure of the claim, the customer may evaluate:

• a preliminary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure;
• preservation of evidence;
• interim protection over relevant assets; or
• where the claim has become a monetary receivable and statutory conditions exist, attachment measures under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

Interim relief is particularly important where there are indications that the platform has liquidity problems or may be unable to satisfy future customer claims.

Capital Markets Law already gives the CMB significant powers where a crypto-asset service provider cannot meet its payment or crypto-delivery obligations or where its financial position has seriously weakened.

13. Practical Example

Assume that an investor purchases USDT worth TRY 8 million through a Turkish crypto exchange.

After all applicable statutory waiting periods have expired, the investor requests a transfer to another wallet.

The platform blocks the transfer and states only that the account is undergoing a “routine compliance review.”

The investor submits every document requested.

There is no court order, prosecutor’s decision or disclosed regulatory restriction.

The account remains blocked for three weeks.

During that period, the investor loses a documented opportunity to use the funds to complete an investment transaction.

In such a case, the investor may have a credible compensation claim.

The key questions would be:

• Why was the restriction imposed?
• Was the exchange legally obliged to impose it?
• Why did the review require three weeks?
• When did the alleged risk cease to exist?
• Could the exchange have completed the review earlier?
• What exact financial transaction could the investor not complete?
• What loss arose specifically because the transfer was not executed?

If the exchange cannot provide convincing answers while the investor can prove the economic consequences of the delay, the prospects of recovery increase considerably.

Conclusion: A Transfer Freeze Is Not Automatically Lawful Simply Because the Exchange Calls It a “Compliance Review”

Turkish law recognises that crypto exchanges must prevent money laundering, protect customer accounts and comply with orders issued by competent authorities.

For that reason, not every delayed withdrawal creates a right to compensation.

However, regulatory compliance is not a licence to keep customer assets inaccessible indefinitely.

Following the amendments to the Capital Markets Law, crypto-asset service providers face direct statutory responsibility for unlawful conduct and failures relating to payment or delivery of customer crypto assets. Contractual clauses attempting to eliminate that responsibility are expressly restricted.

Accordingly, where a crypto exchange suspends a transfer without sufficient legal justification, maintains the restriction for an excessive period or fails to deliver the customer’s assets despite the disappearance of the original reason for the restriction, the customer may pursue:

release or delivery of the crypto assets, compensation for proven financial losses, statutory or contractual interest where applicable, interim judicial protection and regulatory remedies.

The success of the claim will largely depend on three elements:

the unlawfulness of the restriction, the existence of a measurable loss, and the causal link between the two.

For high-value crypto disputes, these issues should be analysed immediately because both market prices and electronic evidence can change rapidly.