Cryptocurrency has created a new challenge in divorce and matrimonial property disputes: assets can be transferred within seconds, held outside traditional banks, moved to foreign exchanges, converted into stablecoins, or stored in private wallets that do not display the owner’s name.
This does not mean, however, that crypto assets are invisible to the courts.
In Türkiye, the regulatory framework governing crypto asset service providers has changed significantly since 2024. Turkish crypto platforms are now subject to Capital Markets Board of Türkiye (“CMB” or “SPK”) supervision, extensive customer identification requirements, record-keeping obligations, and centralized reporting mechanisms. These developments have made the detection of crypto assets increasingly realistic in matrimonial property litigation.
The real challenge is therefore not simply asking:
“Does my spouse own Bitcoin?”
The correct litigation question is:
“What financial, institutional and blockchain evidence can connect the spouse to a crypto asset, determine when it was acquired, trace where it was transferred, and establish whether it must be included in the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime?”
This article explains the practical methods available under Turkish law.
1. Are Crypto Assets Included in the Matrimonial Property Regime?
As a starting point, crypto assets should be approached as economic assets capable of forming part of a spouse’s property.
Under the Turkish Civil Code, the statutory matrimonial property regime is the participation in acquired property regime unless the spouses have validly chosen another regime.
Under Article 219 of the Turkish Civil Code, assets acquired for consideration during the continuation of the matrimonial property regime are generally considered acquired property.
Accordingly, Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins or other crypto assets purchased with salary, professional income, business income or other acquired property during the marriage may ordinarily be included in the calculation of the participating spouse’s claim.
The fact that the asset is stored digitally rather than in a bank account does not fundamentally change this analysis.
What matters is primarily:
- when the crypto asset was acquired;
- how it was financed;
- whether the funds used were acquired or personal property;
- whether the asset existed when the matrimonial property regime ended; and
- whether it was transferred before that date in circumstances falling within Article 229 of the Turkish Civil Code.
Under Article 222, assets of a spouse are presumed to constitute acquired property unless the contrary is proven. Turkish Court of Cassation case law has consistently applied this presumption to financial assets such as bank deposits. The same reasoning is highly relevant when crypto investments are financed during the matrimonial property regime.
2. The Critical Date: When Does the Property Regime End?
This point is particularly important in crypto disputes.
Where the marriage ends by divorce, the matrimonial property regime terminates on the date the divorce proceedings are filed, not on the date the divorce judgment becomes final.
Therefore, suppose a divorce action was filed on 1 February 2026.
The investigation should determine, among other matters:
- how many crypto assets the spouse held on 1 February 2026;
- on which platforms those assets were held;
- whether assets had recently been withdrawn from exchanges;
- whether they had been transferred to external wallets;
- whether significant transfers had occurred before the divorce proceedings; and
- what the source of the funds used to acquire them was.
This distinction is extremely important because the balance visible today may bear little resemblance to the balance existing when the matrimonial property regime ended.
3. Start With the Traditional Financial System
One of the most effective mistakes to avoid in crypto litigation is starting with the blockchain.
In many cases, the investigation should start with the banks.
Most individuals originally enter the crypto market by transferring money from a traditional bank account to a crypto exchange. Turkish anti-money laundering rules also impose extensive customer identification requirements on crypto asset service providers. MASAK regulations require crypto service providers to identify and verify customers and impose enhanced obligations regarding customer relationships and the source of funds.
Therefore, a matrimonial property claim should normally seek detailed bank statements covering a sufficiently broad period before and after the termination of the property regime.
The records should be examined for payments or transfers involving:
- Turkish crypto exchanges;
- foreign crypto platforms;
- payment institutions connected to exchanges;
- transfers containing exchange-related explanations;
- large unexplained international transfers;
- repeated payments to the same financial intermediary; and
- significant cash withdrawals occurring shortly before crypto transactions.
A bank transfer of TRY 500,000 to a crypto platform may be far more useful than a spouse’s declaration that “I have no cryptocurrency.”
The bank record provides the first evidential bridge between the spouse and the digital asset.
4. Requesting Records From Turkish Crypto Exchanges
Once a potential platform has been identified, the most direct procedure is normally to request the Family Court to obtain records from the relevant crypto asset service provider.
Article 221 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure permits the court to order a third person or institution to produce a document where that document is necessary to prove a fact relied upon by the parties.
A crypto exchange may therefore function in evidential terms much like a bank, brokerage company or other financial institution possessing relevant records.
A properly drafted request should not merely ask:
“Does the defendant have an account?”
It should request, where relevant and proportionate:
- whether an account exists or previously existed in the spouse’s name;
- the account opening and closing dates;
- customer identification information;
- crypto balances as of the date on which the matrimonial property regime ended;
- historical asset balances;
- fiat currency deposits and withdrawals;
- crypto purchases and sales;
- crypto deposits and withdrawals;
- destination wallet addresses;
- originating wallet addresses;
- blockchain transaction IDs or transaction hashes;
- records concerning transfers to another platform;
- records identifying counterparties where legally recorded;
- account statements and transaction histories; and
- information necessary to identify subsequent transfers of the assets.
This distinction can determine the outcome of a case.
A response stating that the account currently contains “zero assets” does not establish that the spouse did not own cryptocurrency during the marriage.
The relevant question may instead be:
Where did the cryptocurrency go?
5. Türkiye’s New Central Crypto Registration Infrastructure
A major development for matrimonial property investigations is the establishment of the Crypto Asset Central Registry System – Kripto Varlık Merkezi Kayıt Sistemi (“KVMKS”) operated by Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu (“MKK”).
The system records transactions and balances reported by crypto asset service providers and is intended to reconcile information maintained by platforms and custody providers. MKK has also confirmed that investors can monitor relevant crypto balances through its e-YATIRIMCI infrastructure.
The integration became operationally significant in 2026. MKK announced in June 2026 that crypto asset service providers had been integrated through KVMKS, creating a central infrastructure for crypto assets traded within Türkiye that were not otherwise subject to centralized registration.
This development may materially change asset discovery strategy.
In appropriate cases, counsel may consider requesting the court to investigate whether information concerning the relevant spouse exists within MKK/KVMKS records, subject of course to the procedural requirements governing disclosure and relevance.
The existence of KVMKS does not necessarily mean that every blockchain wallet anywhere in the world becomes identifiable through MKK.
It does, however, significantly strengthen the institutional trail for assets passing through regulated Turkish platforms.
6. CMB Regulation Has Made Crypto Accounts More Traceable
The regulatory environment is substantially different from the early years of cryptocurrency.
Following Law No. 7518, which entered into force in July 2024, crypto asset service providers became subject to the regulatory and supervisory framework of the Capital Markets Board.
The CMB subsequently introduced two major communiqués in March 2025 regulating the establishment, operation, custody, transfer, documentation and record-keeping obligations of crypto asset service providers.
Platforms are required to maintain extensive records concerning customer accounts and crypto transactions.
CMB rules also contemplate records concerning crypto wallets, custody arrangements and customer assets. Regulatory audit procedures expressly involve verification of wallet addresses and comparison of provider records with distributed ledger information.
From a litigation perspective, the significance is clear:
a regulated Turkish crypto platform is no longer merely a website through which cryptocurrency is traded; it is an institution maintaining identifiable customer and transaction records.
7. What If the Crypto Was Withdrawn to a Private Wallet?
This is where the litigation becomes more technical.
A spouse may argue:
“I withdrew the cryptocurrency from the exchange. The exchange account is empty.”
That is not necessarily the end of the investigation.
Suppose the exchange records show:
- 3 BTC purchased during the marriage;
- withdrawal of the 3 BTC on 15 December 2025; and
- transfer to wallet address
bc1q...xyz.
The next question becomes whether the destination wallet belongs to or is controlled by the spouse.
Unlike a traditional bank account, a blockchain address usually does not contain the owner’s legal name.
Nevertheless, blockchain transactions are generally permanent and traceable.
A digital asset or blockchain expert may therefore analyse:
- the destination wallet;
- subsequent transfers;
- transfers between connected addresses;
- whether funds later returned to the spouse’s verified exchange account;
- whether the wallet interacted repeatedly with accounts known to belong to the spouse;
- whether the assets were transferred to another centralized exchange;
- transaction timing and amounts; and
- whether multiple transfers demonstrate a consistent ownership pattern.
Blockchain analysis does not automatically establish legal ownership.
It provides circumstantial and technical evidence which must be connected with other evidence.
8. How Can Ownership of a Self-Custody Wallet Be Proven?
This is often the central evidential problem.
A public wallet address proves that cryptocurrency exists at a particular blockchain address. It does not necessarily prove that the defendant controls the private key.
Ownership or control can instead be established through a combination of evidence.
For example:
Exchange records: A withdrawal directly from the spouse’s verified exchange account to the wallet is strong evidence.
Repeated transactions: Multiple transfers between the same private wallet and the spouse’s exchange account may strengthen attribution.
Bank records: Fiat transfers used to purchase the cryptocurrency can connect the investment with the spouse.
Lawfully obtained electronic evidence: Emails, exchange notifications, transaction confirmations or wallet information may support ownership where obtained lawfully and submitted in accordance with procedural rules.
Admissions: Statements in correspondence, divorce proceedings, commercial documents or other litigation may establish the existence of crypto investments.
Expert analysis: Blockchain forensic analysis may establish transaction chains that would otherwise be impossible for the court to interpret.
Counsel should avoid unlawfully accessing the other spouse’s phone, computer, exchange account or private keys. The evidential strategy should be based on lawful evidence preservation, judicial disclosure and expert analysis rather than unauthorized access.
9. Transfers to Another Wallet Do Not Automatically Remove the Asset From the Case
Crypto makes asset concealment technically easy.
A spouse anticipating divorce could theoretically transfer Bitcoin:
- to another personal wallet;
- to a relative;
- to a friend;
- to a foreign exchange;
- to a decentralized finance protocol; or
- through multiple wallet addresses.
But transferring an asset does not automatically eliminate its relevance to the matrimonial property liquidation.
Article 229 of the Turkish Civil Code is particularly important.
Two categories of transactions may be added back into the calculation of acquired property:
- certain gratuitous transfers made within the year preceding termination of the matrimonial property regime without the other spouse’s consent, except ordinary gifts; and
- transfers made during the matrimonial property regime with the intention of reducing the other spouse’s participation claim.
Therefore, if substantial cryptocurrency is transferred shortly before divorce, counsel should investigate:
Who received it?
Was consideration paid?
Was the transaction genuine?
Did the spouse retain effective control?
Was the transfer commercially justified?
Was the recipient a close relative?
Did the assets later return to another wallet controlled by the spouse?
This is where blockchain evidence may become particularly powerful.
10. The Intention to Reduce the Participation Claim Must Still Be Proven
Practitioners should not assume that every pre-divorce transfer constitutes asset dissipation.
A recent Court of Cassation judgment is particularly instructive.
In Yargıtay 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/7440, K. 2025/9632, dated 6 November 2025, money had been withdrawn from a bank account approximately two years before the matrimonial property regime ended.
The Court emphasized that assets no longer existing when the regime ended cannot automatically be included in the liquidation. The claimant must establish the conditions required by Article 229, including a transfer intended to reduce the participation claim where that ground is relied upon.
Because such intention or an applicable gratuitous transfer had not been proven, the Court held that the historical balance could not simply be treated as if it remained in the account.
The principle is directly relevant to cryptocurrency.
It is not sufficient to say:
“The spouse owned 5 BTC three years ago.”
The litigation must determine:
- whether the BTC still existed when the regime terminated; or
- if not, whether the transfer falls within Article 229.
11. Foreign Crypto Exchanges
The investigation becomes more difficult where assets are held on a foreign exchange without a Turkish entity.
A Turkish Family Court cannot assume that a foreign company will respond to an ordinary domestic judicial writ in the same way as a Turkish institution.
Depending on the jurisdiction and the platform concerned, evidence may have to be pursued through:
- international judicial assistance;
- letters rogatory;
- applicable international conventions;
- disclosure mechanisms available in the country where the platform is established; or
- other legally available cross-border evidence procedures.
For this reason, domestic financial evidence becomes especially important.
A Turkish bank transfer to a foreign exchange, followed by blockchain evidence identifying a withdrawal address, may allow the asset trail to be reconstructed even where direct disclosure from the foreign platform is difficult.
12. Can the Court Prevent the Cryptocurrency From Being Transferred?
Discovery should not be considered separately from preservation.
Crypto assets can move globally within minutes.
Where there is a concrete risk that an asset will be transferred, concealed or made substantially more difficult to recover, counsel should consider whether the conditions for a precautionary injunction under Article 389 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied.
The post-2024 capital markets regime expressly recognizes administrative and judicial measures concerning customers’ crypto assets and requires such requests concerning assets held with crypto asset service providers to be implemented through the relevant provider. The legislation also recognizes electronic mechanisms relating to seizure and similar measures concerning such assets.
Accordingly, in an appropriate matrimonial property case, a specifically reasoned request may be made to prevent the transfer of identified crypto assets pending determination of the claim.
The request should normally be proportionate.
Rather than asking to freeze every asset owned by the defendant, counsel should identify:
- the estimated matrimonial property claim;
- the specific platform;
- the relevant account or assets where known;
- evidence demonstrating risk of disposal; and
- the extent of the measure requested.
13. Valuing Cryptocurrency Creates a Separate Problem
Detection is only the first stage.
Cryptocurrency prices can change dramatically during litigation.
The Turkish Civil Code distinguishes between property existing when the matrimonial property regime terminates and values added back under Article 229.
Under Article 235, acquired property existing when the regime terminates is generally taken into account at its value at the time of liquidation, whereas assets falling within the statutory add-back mechanism are subject to the valuation rules applicable to transferred assets.
Recent Court of Cassation jurisprudence continues to emphasize the need to use legally appropriate and sufficiently current values in matrimonial property liquidation.
Accordingly, an expert report should not simply state:
“The defendant purchased Bitcoin for TRY 400,000.”
It may be necessary to determine:
- the number of coins or tokens;
- the relevant acquisition date;
- the balance existing when the property regime terminated;
- whether any coins were subsequently converted;
- the appropriate valuation date;
- the relevant exchange price;
- foreign exchange conversion where necessary; and
- whether any portion constitutes personal property.
For volatile digital assets, these questions can significantly alter the amount of the participation claim.
14. Personal Property Must Be Distinguished From Acquired Property
Not every cryptocurrency owned during a marriage necessarily constitutes acquired property.
For example, crypto may constitute personal property where the spouse proves that it was:
- owned before the marriage;
- acquired with assets owned before the marriage;
- purchased entirely with inherited funds;
- received by donation; or
- acquired through another source qualifying as personal property under Article 220.
However, tracing remains essential.
If a spouse claims:
“I bought the Bitcoin with inheritance money,”
the court should examine the financial chain.
For example:
Inheritance → bank account → crypto exchange → purchase of BTC
may support the personal property defence.
By contrast:
inheritance funds + salary deposits → mixed account → repeated crypto purchases
may require a considerably more detailed expert analysis.
Court of Cassation decisions concerning bank accounts demonstrate the importance of obtaining complete transaction histories and having specialist experts determine whether funds can actually be traced to personal property.
The same approach should be applied to cryptocurrency.
15. A Practical Litigation Strategy
A strong crypto asset investigation in a Turkish matrimonial property case can therefore be structured as a chain:
First: Determine the precise date on which the matrimonial property regime ended.
Second: Obtain comprehensive bank account histories.
Third: Identify transfers to crypto exchanges, payment institutions and related financial intermediaries.
Fourth: Examine whether KVMKS/MKK records may provide additional information concerning Turkish-platform holdings.
Fifth: Send targeted judicial requests to identified crypto asset service providers.
Sixth: Obtain complete historical transaction records rather than merely current balances.
Seventh: Identify crypto withdrawal addresses and transaction hashes.
Eighth: Where necessary, obtain blockchain forensic expert evidence.
Ninth: Determine whether withdrawn assets were still controlled by the spouse.
Tenth: Analyse suspicious transfers under Article 229.
Eleventh: Seek precautionary protection where there is a demonstrated risk of dissipation.
Twelfth: Separate acquired property from personal property and obtain an appropriate valuation.
The key principle is simple:
Do not search only for the account. Follow the money from the bank to the exchange, from the exchange to the blockchain, and from the blockchain to the final wallet.
Conclusion: Crypto Assets Are Difficult to Hide When the Financial Trail Is Properly Followed
Cryptocurrency has undoubtedly made matrimonial property investigations more technically demanding.
But the assumption that crypto assets are inherently anonymous and impossible to discover is increasingly outdated.
Türkiye’s crypto regulatory framework now requires regulated service providers to maintain customer identification, transaction and asset records. The creation of the MKK Crypto Asset Central Registry System has further strengthened the institutional infrastructure surrounding crypto holdings in Türkiye.
The most effective matrimonial property claims therefore combine several forms of evidence:
banking records + crypto exchange records + KVMKS data where available + blockchain analysis + matrimonial property law.
Where these sources are examined together, even an asset transferred from an exchange to a private wallet may leave a detailed evidential trail.
For practitioners, the decisive issue is no longer simply whether a spouse admits owning cryptocurrency.
The decisive issue is whether the financial and blockchain trail can establish ownership, timing, source of funds, transfer history and legal classification.
In modern matrimonial property litigation, following that trail may reveal assets that would otherwise never appear on a conventional property search.
No Responses