How Can a Foreigner Recover Money Used to Buy Property Registered in the Name of a Turkish Citizen?

A foreign national decides to purchase an apartment, villa or parcel of land in Türkiye.

For one reason or another, the property is not registered directly in the foreign buyer’s name.

Instead, the foreigner transfers the purchase money to:

• a Turkish friend;
• business partner;
• romantic partner;
• spouse;
• relative;
• estate agent;
• interpreter;
• employee;
• or another trusted Turkish citizen.

The Turkish citizen purchases the property and becomes the registered owner.

The understanding between the parties is simple:

“The property is actually being purchased with my money. You will temporarily hold it in your name and transfer it to me when I ask.”

At first, there may be no problem.

The foreign investor may even:

• live in the property;
• pay taxes;
• pay condominium fees;
• renovate the apartment;
• pay utility bills;
• collect rent;
• or transfer further money for expenses.

Years or months later, however, the relationship deteriorates.

The registered Turkish owner says:

“The property is mine. My name is on the title deed.”

The person refuses to transfer the property.

In more serious cases, the registered owner may attempt to:

• sell the property;
• mortgage it;
• transfer it to a family member;
• lease it to another person;
• or deny that the foreigner ever provided the purchase money.

This creates one of the most difficult but recurring property disputes encountered by foreigners in Türkiye.

The most important question is:

Can the foreigner recover the property or at least recover the money paid for it?

The answer is potentially yes, but the correct legal remedy depends on the circumstances.

Turkish law recognises legal relationships commonly described as:

fiduciary transactions (inançlı işlem)

and, in some cases,

nominee or concealed-name arrangements (nam-ı müstear).

Where the foreigner can prove that the Turkish citizen acquired the property using the foreigner’s funds and agreed to hold or later transfer it for the foreigner’s benefit, a claim for title deed cancellation and registration may potentially be available if the foreigner is legally capable of acquiring that property.

Where title transfer is impossible, inappropriate or cannot be proven, the foreigner may alternatively seek:

• repayment of the purchase money;
• the current monetary value in appropriate circumstances;
• restitution based on unjust enrichment;
• contractual damages;
• or compensation arising from fraud or breach of the fiduciary arrangement.

The critical issue is evidence.

Does the Title Deed Belong to the Person Whose Name Appears in the Registry?

As a starting point, yes.

Under Article 705 of the Turkish Civil Code, ownership of immovable property is generally acquired through registration in the Land Registry.

Article 706 also provides that contracts intended to transfer ownership of immovable property must be executed in official form.

Therefore, a foreigner cannot simply say:

“I paid for the apartment, therefore I am automatically its registered legal owner.”

Payment and ownership are different concepts.

If the title deed is registered in the Turkish citizen’s name, that person is the registered owner unless and until the legal situation is changed through:

• voluntary transfer;
• or an enforceable court judgment.

However, the fact that the Turkish citizen is the registered owner does not necessarily mean that person is entitled to retain the property against the foreigner under the contractual relationship between them.

This is where the doctrine of fiduciary transactions becomes important.

What Is a Fiduciary Transaction in Turkish Property Law?

A fiduciary transaction, known in Turkish as inançlı işlem, generally involves one person transferring or allowing a right or asset to be acquired in another person’s name based on an agreement that the holder will use or later return the right according to agreed conditions.

The person who economically provides or entrusts the right is generally described as the inanan.

The person in whose name the right is held is the inanılan.

The registered holder obtains a strong legal position externally but is contractually obliged to respect the agreement between the parties.

Turkish legislation does not regulate fiduciary transactions in a single dedicated statutory section.

Instead, the legal framework has been developed extensively through Court of Cassation jurisprudence, particularly the Court of Cassation Joint Chambers Decision dated 5 February 1947, No. 20/6.

Later Court of Cassation judgments continue to apply those principles.

The Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the fiduciary holder is obliged to use the right in accordance with the agreed conditions and, once the agreed purpose is completed, to return or transfer the property to the person entitled under the fiduciary agreement.

Can This Doctrine Apply When the Foreigner Never Previously Owned the Property?

Yes, depending on the structure of the transaction.

This is particularly important.

The typical fiduciary case often involves a person who owns property and transfers it temporarily to another person.

But Turkish case law also deals with situations in which:

• the claimant supplies the purchase money;
• another person purchases the property in his or her own name;
• and the parties understand that the property is being held for the claimant.

This can resemble a nominee arrangement.

The Court of Cassation has recognised disputes in which a purchaser’s money was used while registration was made in another person’s name.

In one particularly relevant decision, foreign claimants alleged that they purchased a residence through a real estate agent but, because they were foreign nationals and the necessary procedures had not yet been completed, the title was temporarily registered in the estate agent’s name.

The agent later refused to transfer the property.

The Court of Cassation classified the dispute according to the legal principles governing fiduciary transactions rather than treating the registration in the agent’s name as automatically conclusive.

This decision is especially important for foreign property buyers because it demonstrates that Turkish courts can examine the real economic and contractual relationship behind the registration.

Important Court of Cassation Decision Involving Foreign Buyers

The Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/14674, K. 2016/9901, dated 30 November 2016 concerned foreign nationals who alleged that they had purchased a residence through an estate agent.

According to the allegations:

• the foreign buyers entered into an agreement concerning the property;
• because they were foreign nationals, the title was temporarily obtained in the estate agent’s name while procedures were completed;
• the agent later refused to transfer ownership;
• the foreigners sought cancellation of the agent’s title and registration in their own names;
• alternatively, they requested the value of the property or repayment of EUR 630,000 plus EUR 20,000 and interest.

The Court of Cassation held that the dispute should be legally characterised as one arising from a fiduciary transaction and stated that the evidence should be examined accordingly.

This judgment is directly relevant to foreign investors who entrusted property registration to a Turkish citizen.

Can the Foreigner Ask the Court to Transfer the Property Instead of Returning the Money?

Potentially, yes.

If the fiduciary relationship can be proven and the foreigner is legally eligible to acquire the property, the principal claim may be:

cancellation of the registered owner’s title and registration of the property in the foreigner’s name.

This is known as a:

tapu iptal ve tescil davası

or:

title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit.

The foreigner would essentially argue:

“I provided the funds for the purchase. The defendant agreed to acquire and temporarily hold the property for me. The purpose of the fiduciary relationship has ended. The defendant is now contractually obliged to transfer ownership.”

Where the claim is legally and evidentially established, a court judgment can potentially replace the unwilling defendant’s cooperation.

However, title transfer is not always possible.

The foreigner must also satisfy Turkish rules governing foreign acquisition of real estate.

Can Every Foreigner Demand Registration of the Property in Their Own Name?

No.

This point is critical.

Article 35 of the Land Registry Law governs the acquisition of real estate by foreign natural persons.

Under the current rules, eligible foreign nationals may acquire real estate in Türkiye subject to statutory restrictions, including:

• nationality-based eligibility;
• geographical restrictions;
• a general nationwide maximum of 30 hectares per person;
• and the rule limiting relevant foreign ownership to 10% of the privately owned area of the district.

Therefore, a court cannot simply disregard foreign-property restrictions because the foreign claimant supplied the money.

The court may need to determine whether the foreigner is legally eligible to acquire the disputed property.

A Court of Cassation decision involving a foreign claimant and cooperative housing similarly emphasised that the foreign claimant’s legal eligibility to acquire the relevant right had to be examined before title-related relief could be granted.

What If the Property Was Put in a Turkish Citizen’s Name Only to Avoid the Law?

This creates a serious problem.

There is a major difference between:

a legitimate temporary fiduciary arrangement made for convenience while lawful procedures are completed

and

an arrangement deliberately designed to circumvent a legal prohibition on foreign ownership.

If a foreigner was legally prohibited from acquiring the property but intentionally used a Turkish citizen as a nominal owner to evade that prohibition, the foreigner should not assume that a Turkish court will later order title registration in the foreigner’s name.

Article 35 foreign-ownership restrictions remain applicable.

Furthermore, Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations states that property transferred for the purpose of achieving an unlawful or immoral result cannot ordinarily be reclaimed, although the court may order the property to pass to the State in the circumstances contemplated by that provision.

Accordingly, the purpose behind the arrangement can become highly important.

A foreign buyer who could lawfully acquire the property but temporarily used another name for procedural convenience is in a materially different situation from a person who used a nominee specifically to defeat a statutory prohibition.

What Evidence Is Required to Prove a Fiduciary Property Arrangement?

This is probably the most important issue in the entire case.

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence has traditionally required a fiduciary property arrangement to be proven through written evidence under the principles of the 5 February 1947 Joint Chambers Decision No. 20/6.

The Court of Cassation has consistently emphasised that a claim based on a fiduciary transaction involving registered real estate cannot generally be established merely through unsupported witness testimony.

The strongest evidence is a written agreement signed by the person holding the property.

For example:

“The apartment registered in my name was purchased entirely with funds provided by Mr. X. I hold the apartment temporarily on his behalf and shall transfer it to him upon request.”

Such a document can be extremely powerful.

But many foreign buyers do not have such a formal document.

That does not necessarily mean the case is impossible.

Can Bank Transfers Be Used as Evidence?

Yes, and they can be extremely important.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence recognises that documents such as:

• bank-transfer records;
• correspondence;
• letters;
• and other written material originating from the opposing party

may constitute a beginning of written proof (delil başlangıcı).

Where a legally sufficient beginning of written proof exists, other evidence—including witness testimony—may become admissible to complete the proof of the fiduciary relationship under Article 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A foreign claimant should therefore preserve every bank document.

Important evidence can include:

• international SWIFT transfers;
• transfers directly to the registered Turkish owner;
• payments to the original seller;
• transfers describing the payment as “house purchase,” “apartment purchase” or similar;
• mortgage payments;
• property tax payments;
• renovation invoices;
• and payments immediately corresponding to the acquisition date.

The payment trail can show who actually financed the acquisition.

Is a Bank Transfer Alone Enough to Prove Ownership?

Not necessarily.

This distinction is essential.

A bank transfer proves that money was sent.

It does not automatically prove why it was sent.

The Turkish citizen may respond:

“That money was a gift.”

or:

“It was repayment of a debt.”

or:

“It was an investment in another business.”

or:

“We bought the property together.”

Therefore, the court must examine the entire factual context.

A transfer containing the description:

“Purchase price for apartment at [address]”

is substantially stronger than an unexplained transfer marked simply:

“payment.”

Correspondence linking the transfer to the property becomes particularly valuable.

Can WhatsApp Messages Help?

Yes.

Messages may show the real agreement.

For example:

“Once the foreign ownership documents are completed, I will transfer your apartment to you.”

or:

“Your apartment is currently in my name, but you paid all the money.”

or:

“I will give you the title when you arrive in Türkiye.”

Such communications may be extremely important.

They can help demonstrate that the registered owner never economically treated the property as his or her own.

Electronic communications should be preserved carefully and their evidential authenticity should be capable of verification.

What Other Evidence Can Support the Foreign Buyer?

Useful evidence may include:

• signed agreements;
• bank transfers;
• SWIFT confirmations;
• WhatsApp conversations;
• emails;
• SMS messages;
• receipts;
• estate-agent documents;
• property advertisements;
• power-of-attorney documents;
• statements by the original seller;
• tax payments;
• condominium payments;
• renovation contracts;
• utility records;
• insurance;
• rental income paid to the foreigner;
• and evidence that the foreigner exercised actual control over the property.

No single piece of evidence necessarily determines the case.

The court evaluates the entire relationship.

Can Witnesses Be Used?

Potentially, where the evidentiary rules permit them.

Where the claimant has a legally sufficient beginning of written proof, Article 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure may allow the fiduciary arrangement to be established through additional evidence including witnesses.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence expressly recognises this possibility.

For example, useful witnesses might include:

• the original property seller;
• the estate agent;
• interpreter;
• lawyer involved in the transaction;
• bank officer;
• or persons present when the parties agreed that the Turkish citizen would temporarily hold title.

However, a purely oral story with no documentary support is substantially more difficult.

What If There Is No Signed Fiduciary Agreement?

The case is harder, but not necessarily impossible.

The first question becomes whether there is a beginning of written proof originating from the registered owner.

Examples may include:

• a message acknowledging that the foreigner paid for the property;
• a bank transfer and corresponding written discussion;
• an unsigned but acknowledged memorandum;
• emails referring to future transfer;
• or documents connecting the Turkish holder to the fiduciary arrangement.

The Court of Cassation’s 2023 decision E.2023/2197, K.2023/3532 again reaffirmed that bank records and correspondence may potentially constitute a beginning of written proof and allow the claimant to rely on additional evidence.

Without written evidence or a sufficient beginning of proof, the claim becomes considerably more difficult.

What If the Foreigner Only Wants the Money Back?

This can sometimes be the strategically safer remedy.

The foreign buyer may no longer want the property.

Perhaps:

• the property has already been sold;
• ownership transfer is legally impossible;
• foreign ownership restrictions prevent registration;
• the relationship has completely collapsed;
• or the property is worth less than expected.

In these circumstances, the foreigner may seek the return of the funds paid.

The legal basis depends on the transaction.

Possible grounds include:

• breach of the fiduciary agreement;
• contractual restitution;
• unjust enrichment;
• damages;
• fraud;
• or another debt relationship between the parties.

The lawsuit can also be structured in the alternative.

For example:

Primary request: title cancellation and registration in the foreigner’s name.

Alternative request: if title registration cannot be ordered, payment of the property value or amounts provided by the foreigner.

This type of alternative structure has appeared directly in Court of Cassation decisions involving foreign claimants.

What Is Unjust Enrichment?

Unjust enrichment is regulated by Articles 77 and following of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

The basic principle is that a person who becomes enriched from another person’s property without a legally valid reason may be required to return that enrichment.

For example:

A foreign buyer sends EUR 300,000 to a Turkish citizen solely so that an apartment can be purchased for the foreigner.

The Turkish citizen buys the apartment in his own name.

The person later rejects the agreement and retains both the economic benefit and ownership.

If the contractual or property claim cannot be enforced in the anticipated way, unjust enrichment may potentially become relevant depending on the facts.

However, unjust enrichment is generally a subsidiary remedy.

If a valid contractual relationship governs the same payment, the claim should normally first be characterised according to that relationship.

What Is the Limitation Period for Unjust Enrichment?

Article 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations currently provides that a claim arising from unjust enrichment becomes time-barred:

• two years from the date on which the claimant learns of the right to demand restitution;
• and in any event ten years from the date on which the enrichment occurred.

This is one reason a foreign claimant should not wait for years after the Turkish registered owner refuses transfer.

The exact legal basis of the claim determines the applicable limitation period.

What Is the Limitation Period for a Fiduciary Transaction Claim?

Court of Cassation jurisprudence generally accepts that, because there is no special statutory limitation period specifically prescribed for claims arising from fiduciary agreements, the general contractual limitation period applies.

Under Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, claims are generally subject to a ten-year limitation period unless another period is specifically provided by law.

Court of Cassation decisions concerning fiduciary transactions similarly refer to a ten-year limitation period.

However, identifying the date on which the period begins requires analysis of when the transfer obligation became due.

Therefore, a claimant should never assume that “I have ten years from the purchase date” without examining the agreement and demand history.

What If the Turkish Citizen Says the Money Was a Gift?

This is one of the most common defences.

The court may examine:

• the amount;
• relationship between the parties;
• financial circumstances;
• purpose stated in bank records;
• messages before and after payment;
• who selected the property;
• who negotiated the purchase;
• who possessed the property;
• who paid taxes and expenses;
• and whether the registered owner ever treated the property as personally theirs.

For example, a EUR 500,000 payment from a foreign business partner immediately followed by the purchase of an apartment, combined with messages saying “I will transfer your property later,” makes a gift defence substantially less persuasive.

By contrast, where the parties were spouses or romantic partners and no written understanding exists, evidentiary disputes can become more difficult.

What If the Turkish Citizen Is the Foreigner’s Spouse or Partner?

The legal analysis may become more complicated.

The claim may involve:

• fiduciary transaction;
• loan;
• gift;
• family-law property regime;
• unjust enrichment;
• or another contractual relationship.

The fact that parties were married or romantically involved does not automatically mean that all substantial money transfers were gifts.

But it may affect the evidentiary evaluation.

Marriage can additionally trigger matrimonial property rules.

Therefore, claims involving spouses should be assessed both under property/contract law and applicable matrimonial property law.

What If the Turkish Citizen Sells the Property to Someone Else?

This can significantly change the case.

The foreign claimant should act quickly if there is a risk of transfer.

If the property is sold to another person, the ability to recover the property itself may depend on the legal status and good faith of the subsequent purchaser.

Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code protects a third person who acquires a real right in good faith by relying on the Land Registry.

Therefore, a genuine innocent subsequent buyer may potentially receive strong protection.

If recovery of the property becomes impossible, the foreign claimant may need to pursue:

• the value of the property;
• damages;
• or the proceeds received by the fiduciary holder.

This is why urgent protection of the property can be essential.

Can the Foreigner Obtain a Preliminary Injunction?

Potentially, yes.

Where there is a real danger that the Turkish registered owner will:

• sell;
• mortgage;
• transfer;
• or otherwise dispose of the property,

a request for a preliminary injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) may be considered.

The purpose is to preserve the disputed property until the court reaches a final decision.

A foreigner should not wait until the property is transferred to multiple third parties before seeking legal protection.

The evidentiary threshold and security requirements for an injunction must be evaluated in the individual case.

What If the Turkish Citizen Mortgages the Property?

Because the Turkish citizen is the registered owner, that person may attempt to create registered rights in favour of third parties.

The bank or other mortgage holder’s good faith can become legally significant.

A registered mortgage may complicate recovery.

Therefore, urgent title and encumbrance checks should be made as soon as the dispute begins.

Can the Foreigner File a Criminal Complaint?

Possibly.

A broken promise is not automatically criminal fraud.

However, if the Turkish citizen never genuinely intended to transfer the property and used the trust relationship from the beginning to obtain the foreigner’s money, criminal fraud may need to be considered.

Relevant evidence may include:

• false promises;
• fabricated documents;
• immediate attempts to hide or sell the property;
• repeated similar conduct against other foreigners;
• false statements concerning the purchase;
• diversion of money;
• or evidence showing fraudulent intention at the time funds were obtained.

Criminal proceedings do not automatically replace the civil action.

If the foreigner’s main objective is recovery of the property or money, the appropriate civil remedies must still be pursued.

Does Filing a Criminal Complaint Automatically Freeze the Property?

No.

A criminal complaint should not be treated as a substitute for civil protective measures.

If the property is in danger of being transferred, a separate injunction strategy may be necessary.

Waiting solely for a prosecutor’s investigation can allow the registered owner to dispose of the property.

Which Court Hears the Case?

For a classic fiduciary transaction claim involving title cancellation and registration, the Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) will generally be the relevant court.

This point is supported by the Court of Cassation’s decision involving foreign property buyers discussed above.

In E.2016/14674, K.2016/9901, the lower court had considered the foreign buyers consumers because the defendant was an estate agent.

The Court of Cassation disagreed with the approach to jurisdiction, holding that the case as pleaded was fundamentally based on a fiduciary transaction and title cancellation/registration, and therefore had to be examined accordingly by the Civil Court of First Instance.

The legal character of the claim therefore matters more than the label used by the parties.

Is the Court Where the Property Is Located Important?

Yes.

Where the case seeks a change in ownership of immovable property, the special jurisdiction rules concerning real estate apply.

Title cancellation and registration proceedings are generally brought before the competent court for the location of the property.

A purely monetary action may require a different territorial-jurisdiction analysis.

Can the Foreign Buyer Sue from Outside Türkiye?

Yes.

A foreign claimant does not generally need to live in Türkiye throughout the lawsuit.

The person may appoint a Turkish lawyer through an appropriately executed power of attorney.

Depending on the country where the power of attorney is issued, it may be prepared:

• through a Turkish consulate;
• or through a local notary with the required apostille/legalisation and translation procedures.

Therefore, returning permanently to another country does not extinguish the claim.

What If the Turkish Citizen Dies?

The claim does not necessarily disappear.

If the person holding the property dies, the property may pass to the heirs.

The foreign claimant may then need to pursue the estate or heirs depending on:

• whether the property remains registered in the deceased’s name;
• inheritance registration;
• the nature of the claim;
• and subsequent transfers.

This can make litigation more complicated.

Foreign investors should therefore not postpone claims indefinitely merely because the person still acknowledges the arrangement informally.

What If the Property Is Transferred to the Turkish Citizen’s Children?

If the transfer occurs after the dispute arises, the circumstances should be examined carefully.

The children may argue that they lawfully acquired the property.

The foreign claimant may argue that the transfer was intended to frustrate the fiduciary obligation.

The ability to recover title may depend, among other things, on:

• whether consideration was genuinely paid;
• whether the new owners knew about the foreigner’s claim;
• timing;
• family relationship;
• and Article 1023 good-faith rules.

A transfer to relatives is not automatically invalid.

But suspicious circumstances can become important evidence.

Can the Foreign Buyer Claim the Current Property Value?

Potentially, depending on the legal basis and structure of the claim.

Suppose:

The foreigner paid EUR 200,000.

The Turkish citizen acquired the property.

Five years later, the property is worth EUR 600,000.

The registered owner unlawfully sells it and keeps the proceeds.

If actual title restoration is no longer possible, limiting every case mechanically to the historical amount transferred may not always reflect the claimant’s real loss.

Claims can be structured around:

• contractual value;
• current property value;
• proceeds obtained;
• unjust enrichment;
• and damages,

depending on the facts.

Court of Cassation cases involving foreign claimants have expressly included alternative requests for the current market value of the property if title registration cannot be granted.

The correct valuation date is a separate legal issue and should be determined according to the cause of action.

Can the Foreigner Claim Interest?

Potentially, yes.

Where a monetary obligation becomes due and the defendant enters default, interest may be claimed under the relevant statutory rules.

The starting date may depend on:

• contractual maturity;
• formal demand;
• lawsuit date;
• or other circumstances.

A formal notarial notice demanding transfer or repayment can therefore be strategically useful.

Should a Notarial Notice Be Sent Before Filing the Lawsuit?

In many cases, yes.

A formal notice may state:

• that the foreigner provided the purchase funds;
• that the property was registered in the defendant’s name solely under the agreed fiduciary arrangement;
• that the purpose of the arrangement has ended;
• that immediate transfer is demanded;
• and alternatively that the funds or property value must be repaid.

This creates a clear documentary record.

It may also establish the point from which the defendant’s refusal and default become undeniable.

However, a notice should not delay an urgent injunction application where the property is about to be sold.

Practical Example 1: Foreign Buyer Sends the Entire Purchase Price to a Turkish Friend

A British citizen sends EUR 350,000 to a Turkish friend.

WhatsApp messages state:

“Purchase the villa temporarily in your name. When my foreign-purchase procedure is ready, transfer it to me.”

The friend purchases the villa.

The British citizen pays taxes and renovation costs.

One year later, the friend refuses transfer.

This is a strong candidate for a fiduciary-transaction analysis.

The foreign buyer may seek:

title cancellation and registration

and alternatively:

payment of the property value or funds provided.

The written correspondence and bank transfers are central evidence.

Practical Example 2: No Agreement, Only Money Transfers

A foreign citizen sends EUR 250,000 to a Turkish acquaintance.

The acquaintance buys an apartment.

There is no written statement referring to the apartment.

The acquaintance argues the money was a gift.

This case is significantly harder.

The foreign claimant must establish the purpose of the transfers.

Other evidence becomes extremely important:

• communications;
• original seller testimony;
• property searches carried out by the foreigner;
• renovation payments;
• possession;
• and other circumstantial evidence.

The absence of a written fiduciary document can materially weaken a title claim.

Practical Example 3: The Foreigner Paid the Original Seller Directly

A German investor chooses an apartment.

The investor transfers the purchase price directly from a German bank account to the original Turkish seller.

However, at the investor’s request the title is registered temporarily in the name of the investor’s Turkish business partner.

The business partner later claims the apartment belongs to him.

Direct payment of the purchase price by the foreign investor can be powerful evidence because it undermines the registered owner’s assertion that he personally financed the acquisition.

The court would still examine the agreement explaining why title was placed in the business partner’s name.

Practical Example 4: Registered Owner Sells the Apartment

A foreign buyer paid TRY 10 million for an apartment registered in a Turkish friend’s name.

The friend secretly sells the apartment to an unrelated third party.

If the third-party purchaser qualifies as a protected good-faith buyer, recovery of the apartment itself may become impossible.

The foreign investor may then need to pursue the original fiduciary holder for:

• the sale proceeds;
• damages;
• property value;
• and other monetary relief.

This shows why early injunction applications can be critical.

Practical Example 5: Property Could Not Legally Be Registered to the Foreigner

A foreign person was legally prohibited from acquiring the particular property.

Knowing this, the person deliberately registers the property in a Turkish citizen’s name solely to evade the statutory prohibition.

Years later, the foreigner seeks title registration.

The court cannot simply disregard the prohibition.

The arrangement may also raise issues under Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations concerning performance aimed at an unlawful result.

This scenario must therefore be distinguished from a legitimate temporary holding arrangement.

Practical Example 6: The Turkish Estate Agent Buys the Property in Their Own Name

A foreign couple selects a residence and provides the necessary funds.

The estate agent says:

“The foreigner procedure will take time. I will put it in my name temporarily and transfer it afterwards.”

The agent later refuses.

This is strikingly similar to the facts considered by the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber in E.2016/14674, K.2016/9901.

The Court treated the matter as a fiduciary transaction and required the evidence to be assessed under the established principles governing such arrangements.

Frequently Asked Questions

I paid for a property in Türkiye but the title is in my Turkish friend’s name. Do I have any rights?

Potentially yes. If you can prove that the property was acquired under a fiduciary arrangement for your benefit, you may seek title transfer or monetary recovery.

Is paying the purchase price enough to become the owner?

No. Registered real estate ownership generally requires Land Registry registration. Payment alone does not automatically create ownership.

Can I ask the court to transfer the property to me?

Potentially yes, if the fiduciary arrangement is proven and you are legally eligible to own the property.

What if I only want my money back?

You may potentially claim repayment, damages or unjust enrichment depending on the legal relationship.

Can I ask for both the property and alternatively the money?

Yes. Depending on procedural strategy, the claim may be structured with title cancellation/registration as the primary request and monetary relief as an alternative. Similar alternative claims have appeared in Court of Cassation cases involving foreign purchasers.

What is an inançlı işlem?

It is a fiduciary arrangement under which property or a right is placed in another person’s legal control subject to an obligation to use or later return it according to agreed conditions.

Do I need a written contract?

Written evidence is extremely important. Court of Cassation jurisprudence generally requires fiduciary real estate claims to satisfy the special written-proof principles developed under the 5 February 1947 Joint Chambers Decision.

Are bank transfers useful?

Yes. They may prove financing and can potentially constitute a beginning of written proof when linked to the arrangement.

Can WhatsApp messages be evidence?

Yes, depending on authenticity and content. Messages acknowledging that the property belongs economically to the foreigner can be highly important.

Can witnesses testify?

Where a sufficient beginning of written proof exists, additional evidence including witnesses may become available under procedural law.

What if the Turkish citizen says the money was a gift?

The court must determine the real reason for the payment based on the complete evidence.

Can the Turkish citizen sell the property?

As the registered owner, the person may attempt to transfer it. This is why an urgent preliminary injunction may need to be considered.

What if it has already been sold?

Your ability to recover the property may depend on the new owner’s good faith. Monetary compensation against the person who breached the fiduciary agreement may then become particularly important.

Can I file a criminal complaint?

Possibly, if the evidence supports fraud rather than merely a civil breach of promise.

Does the criminal complaint return my money automatically?

No. Civil proceedings for the property or money should be considered separately.

What is the limitation period?

It depends on the legal basis. Fiduciary-contract claims are generally analysed under the ten-year general contractual limitation period; unjust-enrichment claims are subject to the two-year/ten-year structure in Article 82.

Can I sue after leaving Türkiye?

Yes. A foreign claimant may generally appoint Turkish counsel through an appropriately issued power of attorney.

What Should the Foreign Buyer Do Immediately?

A foreigner facing this problem should ideally take the following steps without delay:

1. Obtain the current Land Registry record.

Confirm whether the trusted Turkish person still owns the property.

2. Check for mortgages, attachments and transfers.

The urgency of the case depends heavily on whether the property is still unencumbered.

3. Collect every bank transfer.

Especially obtain full SWIFT records from foreign banks.

4. Preserve all WhatsApp and email correspondence.

Do not rely only on screenshots that can later be challenged; retain original devices and data where possible.

5. Identify the original seller.

The original seller may be a critical witness regarding who negotiated and who paid.

6. Collect all property expenses paid by the foreigner.

Taxes, condominium dues, renovations and utilities can support the economic relationship.

7. Determine whether the foreigner can legally acquire the property.

Article 35 restrictions must be checked before demanding registration.

8. Consider a formal demand.

A notarial notice may be appropriate.

9. Assess the need for an injunction immediately.

Do not wait if there is evidence that the registered holder intends to sell.

10. Structure alternative claims carefully.

Where appropriate, request title transfer primarily and monetary recovery alternatively.

Conclusion: A Turkish Citizen Cannot Necessarily Keep a Property Simply Because the Title Was Placed in Their Name

The fact that a Turkish citizen appears as the registered owner of a property does not automatically resolve the contractual relationship between that person and the foreigner who financed the purchase.

Turkish property law gives great importance to Land Registry registration.

Article 705 of the Turkish Civil Code establishes registration as the normal method for acquiring real estate ownership, and Article 706 requires official form for agreements intended to transfer ownership.

However, Court of Cassation jurisprudence also recognises fiduciary transactions and nominee-type arrangements.

A person cannot necessarily receive another person’s purchase money, acquire a property under an agreement to hold it temporarily and later deny the agreement simply because the title was placed in his or her name.

The Court of Cassation’s decision E.2016/14674, K.2016/9901 is particularly important for foreign property buyers.

In that case, foreign claimants alleged that their residence had been registered temporarily in an estate agent’s name because foreign-purchase procedures had not yet been completed.

When the estate agent later refused transfer, the Court of Cassation held that the dispute had to be evaluated according to the legal principles of a fiduciary transaction.

This provides an important legal route for foreigners facing similar circumstances.

However, success depends heavily on proof.

The strongest case generally involves:

• a written agreement;
• bank evidence showing that the foreigner provided the purchase price;
• correspondence acknowledging temporary registration;
• proof that the foreigner selected and controlled the property;
• and evidence showing that the registered owner did not economically finance the acquisition.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence attaches special importance to written evidence.

Under the long-established principles originating from the 5 February 1947, No. 20/6 Joint Chambers Decision, fiduciary claims involving property normally require written proof.

Where a complete written fiduciary contract does not exist, bank transfers, correspondence and documents originating from the opposing party may sometimes qualify as a beginning of written proof and allow additional evidence to be considered.

Therefore, foreign investors should never underestimate ordinary communications.

A simple WhatsApp message saying:

“Your apartment is temporarily in my name and I will transfer it later”

may become far more valuable than dozens of witnesses.

The legal remedy must then be selected carefully.

If the foreigner can lawfully acquire the property, a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit may potentially be the strongest remedy.

If actual title transfer is no longer possible or desirable, the claimant may instead—or alternatively—seek:

• return of the purchase funds;
• compensation;
• the value of the property;
• or restitution based on the applicable contractual or unjust-enrichment principles.

Where unjust enrichment applies, Article 82 establishes a two-year period beginning when the claimant learns of the restitution right and an ultimate ten-year period beginning from enrichment.

Where the claim arises from the fiduciary agreement itself, Court of Cassation jurisprudence generally applies the ordinary ten-year contractual limitation framework under Article 146.

Foreign investors must nevertheless be careful about one major limitation.

A fiduciary arrangement cannot safely be used as a mechanism to bypass Turkish restrictions on foreign property ownership.

Article 35 of the Land Registry Law continues to regulate which foreigners can acquire Turkish real estate and under what conditions.

If the Turkish citizen was deliberately used as a nominal owner solely because the foreigner was legally prohibited from acquiring the property, direct title registration may be unavailable and additional questions concerning illegality—including Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations—may arise.

The distinction is therefore fundamental:

Temporary registration for legitimate procedural convenience is one issue.

Using a Turkish citizen deliberately to evade a statutory ownership prohibition is another.

Finally, speed matters.

Once the trusted Turkish owner begins denying the agreement, the foreigner should immediately determine:

Is the property still registered in that person’s name?

Has it been mortgaged?

Has it been transferred to a spouse or relative?

Is there written evidence?

Can the purchase money be traced?

Can the foreigner legally own the property?

Is an injunction required?

Should title transfer or repayment be the primary remedy?

These questions should be answered before the property is transferred to an innocent third party.

A foreign investor who has financed a property registered in another person’s name should therefore not assume that the money is automatically lost.

Turkish law may provide substantial remedies—but the transaction must be reconstructed through evidence and the correct legal theory must be selected from the beginning.

Legal Basis

The principal Turkish legal provisions and judicial principles relevant to this type of dispute include:

Turkish Civil Code No. 4721

Article 705 – Acquisition by Registration

Ownership of immovable property is generally acquired through registration in the Land Registry.

Article 706 – Official Form

Contracts intended to transfer ownership of immovable property must be executed in official form.

Articles 1023–1025 – Land Registry Protection

These provisions regulate protection of good-faith third-party acquisitions and correction of unlawful registrations, which become particularly important if the trusted registered owner transfers the property to someone else.

Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098

Articles 26–27 – Freedom of Contract and Invalidity

Fiduciary agreements can bind the parties so long as their purpose and provisions do not violate mandatory law, morality, public order or personal rights.

Articles 77–82 – Unjust Enrichment

May provide restitution where one person retains an economic benefit without legal basis.

Article 81 – Performance for an Unlawful or Immoral Purpose

Property given for the purpose of achieving an unlawful or immoral result cannot ordinarily be reclaimed under the provision; this rule becomes particularly important where a nominee arrangement was designed to circumvent a statutory prohibition.

Article 82 – Limitation Period for Unjust Enrichment

Two years after learning of the restitution right and, in any event, ten years after the enrichment.

Article 146 – General Ten-Year Limitation Period

Unless another period is provided, claims are generally subject to a ten-year limitation period.

Land Registry Law No. 2644

Article 35 – Foreign Ownership of Real Estate

Regulates acquisition of real estate by eligible foreign natural persons and includes the statutory geographical and quantitative restrictions applicable to foreign ownership.

Selected Court of Cassation Decisions

Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/14674, K. 2016/9901, 30 November 2016

Foreign purchasers alleged that a property they had paid for was temporarily registered in the estate agent’s name because of the foreign-purchase process, but the agent subsequently refused transfer. The Court of Cassation classified the dispute as a fiduciary-transaction dispute and required examination under those principles.

Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2023/2197, K. 2023/3532, 21 June 2023

Reaffirmed that fiduciary transactions must generally be proved through written evidence, while bank records and correspondence may potentially constitute a beginning of written proof allowing additional evidence.

Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2017/1898, K. 2020/6542

Explained in detail the nature of fiduciary agreements, their binding effect between the parties and the special written-evidence requirement derived from the 1947 Joint Chambers Decision.

Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/17889, K. 2020/6185

Confirmed that where a sufficient beginning of written proof exists, a fiduciary agreement may be completed through additional evidence including witness evidence and reiterated the general ten-year limitation approach for fiduciary claims.

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information concerning Turkish property and obligations law. It does not constitute legal advice for a particular transaction. Claims involving property held in another person’s name are highly dependent on the written evidence, payment history, foreign buyer’s eligibility to acquire the property, subsequent transfers and the actual purpose of the arrangement. Individual legal review should therefore be obtained before filing a title or monetary claim.