Fake websites, imitation banking interfaces and deceptive links sent by SMS are among the forms in which the offence of fraud (dolandırıcılık) is most frequently committed today. Not every allegation of computer-based fraud, however, receives the same legal classification. The line between aggravated fraud (nitelikli dolandırıcılık) and simple fraud is of considerable importance, particularly in files in which computer systems have been used as the instrument of the offence. In this article we examine that distinction, the penalties, the recent change in the court having jurisdiction and the points that arise in defence, within the framework of TCK m. 157 and 158 and on the basis of the legislation in force as at 17.09.2026.
- Simple fraud (TCK m. 157) carries a sentence of imprisonment of from one to five years, whereas aggravated fraud (TCK m. 158) carries a sentence of imprisonment of from three to ten years.
- The use of computer systems, or of banks or credit institutions, as the instrument of the offence (TCK m. 158/1-f) is one of the aggravated forms, and its lower limit is four years.
- Using a system as an instrument for deceiving a person and taking advantage of a security vulnerability in a system may fall, in law, within different offence types (TCK m. 158 and TCK m. 244).
- By Law no. 7571 (Official Gazette of 25.12.2025, no. 33118) aggravated fraud has been removed from the jurisdiction of the aggravated criminal court (ağır ceza mahkemesi), and the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi) has become the court with jurisdiction.
- Whereas simple fraud falls within the scope of criminal mediation (uzlaştırma), aggravated fraud is not subject to mediation under CMK m. 253.
What Is the Offence of Fraud? (TCK m. 157)
Under TCK m. 157, fraud consists in deceiving a person by deceptive conduct (hileli davranış) and thereby obtaining a benefit for oneself or for another to the detriment of that person or of a third party; the offence is punished with imprisonment of from one to five years and a judicial fine (adli para cezası) of up to five thousand days. For the offence to arise, the perpetrator must engage in deceptive conduct, that conduct must be such as to mislead the victim, the victim must make a disposition as a result of being misled, that disposition must cause loss to the victim or to another, and the perpetrator or a third party must obtain an unjust benefit.
The Aggravated Forms of Fraud (TCK m. 158)
TCK m. 158 punishes the commission of fraud in certain circumstances more severely. The legislature has treated as aggravated forms those situations in which the perpetrator abuses public trust or in which the victim is particularly defenceless.
| Aggravated Form | Example |
|---|---|
| Abuse of religious belief and feeling | Organising a fake charity campaign |
| Taking advantage of a dangerous situation or of difficult circumstances | A false promise of aid to a disaster victim |
| Taking advantage of a weakness in the capacity to perceive | Deceiving an elderly victim |
| Use of public institutions as the instrument of the offence | An application made with forged official documents |
| A computer system, bank or credit institution serving as the instrument | Money transfer by way of a fake bank SMS or link |
| Taking advantage of the press and broadcasting media | A fake investment advertisement |
| Abuse of the capacity of merchant or of company/cooperative director | Recruiting shareholders with false information in the name of a company |
| Presenting oneself as a public official or bank employee | A call from a bogus bank employee |
Photograph: Jernej Furman, Source: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)
Use of a Computer System, Bank or Credit Institution as the Instrument of the Offence (sub-paragraph f)
TCK m. 158/1-f treats as an aggravated form the commission of fraud by using computer systems, or banks or credit institutions, as the instrument of the offence. This sub-paragraph is applied most often in cases of fraud committed through fake internet banking interfaces, imitation e-commerce sites, deceptive links sent by SMS or e-mail (phishing, oltalama) and fake investment platforms. For acts falling within this sub-paragraph the lower limit of the sentence of imprisonment is four years, and the judicial fine may not be less than twice the benefit obtained from the offence.
The Other Aggravated Forms and the Increase for Joint Commission
Where the offences enumerated in TCK m. 158 and m. 157 are committed jointly by three or more persons, the sentence to be imposed is increased by one half; where the offence is committed within the framework of the activity of a criminal organisation, the sentence is increased by one full measure. In computer-based fraud committed within an organised structure, the combined assessment of these grounds of increase may significantly affect the amount of the sentence.
The “Computers Cannot Be Deceived” Principle: The Difference Between TCK 158 and TCK 244
The essential element of the offence of fraud is the deceiving of a natural person by deceptive conduct; computer systems as a rule cannot be deceived, they can only be used as an instrument. For this reason an important distinction is drawn in the practice of the Yargıtay (the Court of Cassation): if the perpetrator personally deceives the victim by means of a fake website or message and thereby causes the victim to send money of their own volition, that act constitutes aggravated fraud under TCK m. 158/1-f. If, by contrast, the perpetrator obtains data or money by gaining unauthorised access to a computer system directly, or by disrupting the operation of the system, without deceiving any person, that act is assessed under TCK m. 244 (accessing a computer system, corrupting data, obstructing the operation of a system). The obtaining and use of credit card information without the consent of its holder is examined separately under TCK m. 245 (misuse of bank or credit cards). Drawing the boundary between these three offence types correctly is of critical importance both for the classification of the offence and for the determination of the sentence to be applied.
In practice this distinction is generally clarified by the examination of a court-appointed computer expert (bilirkişi); examination of the transaction logs, the IP records and the system access movements reveals whether the perpetrator deceived the victim or intervened directly in the system. A failure to make this technical determination correctly may lead to the case being conducted on the basis of the wrong offence type.
What a Victim Should Do After Fraud Committed Through Computer Systems
The first thing a person who realises that they have been defrauded through computer systems should do is to call the bank concerned immediately and ask for the transaction to be stopped or reversed; in some cases banks are able to intervene before the transaction has been completed. The second step is to apply, by way of a criminal complaint petition, to the nearest police station or to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı); the complaint petition should set out in full the transaction dates, the screenshots, the content of the messages or e-mails received and, where available, information such as the IBAN or telephone number belonging to the fraudster. Bearing in mind that evidence may be deleted over time (particularly message records and web pages), securing that evidence at an early stage by way of screenshots or a notarial record may be decisive for proof later on.
Amounts of Punishment and Grounds of Increase
| Offence | Imprisonment | Judicial Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Simple fraud (m. 157) | 1-5 years | Up to 5.000 days |
| Aggravated fraud (m. 158, general) | 3-10 years | Up to 5.000 days |
| Aggravated fraud (computer system/bank – sub-paragraph f) | 4-10 years | May not be less than 2 times the benefit |
| Commission by three or more persons | Increase by one half | – |
| Commission within the framework of the activity of a criminal organisation | Increase by one full measure | – |
The Court With Jurisdiction: From the Aggravated Criminal Court to the Criminal Court of First Instance
By Law no. 7571, published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) of 25 December 2025, no. 33118, the offence of aggravated fraud has been removed from the jurisdiction of the aggravated criminal court and the criminal court of first instance has become the court with jurisdiction. Files which, on the date on which the Law entered into force, were pending before an aggravated criminal court or were at the appeal or cassation stage are not affected by this change and continue to be heard at the stage they have reached. For this reason, as at 17.09.2026, newly filed aggravated fraud cases are heard before the criminal court of first instance.
Mediation and Effective Remorse
In the catalogue of offences subject to mediation under CMK m. 253, the offence of fraud appears only in its basic form (TCK m. 157); aggravated fraud (TCK m. 158) falls outside the scope of mediation. For this reason, in a file proceeding under TCK m. 158 it is not possible for a mediator to be appointed and for the file to be discontinued by way of agreement between the parties. The provision on effective remorse (etkin pişmanlık) laid down in TCK m. 168 may, however, secure a substantial reduction in sentence where the perpetrator, the instigator or the accessory makes good in full the loss suffered by the victim before the investigation is completed; making good the loss at the prosecution stage may lead to a lower rate of reduction.
Limitation of Prosecution
Since the upper limit for aggravated fraud is ten years, the limitation period for prosecution (dava zamanaşımı) is fifteen years under TCK m. 66/1-d (offences requiring imprisonment of more than five years and less than twenty years). In simple fraud, since the upper limit is five years, the limitation period for prosecution is eight years under TCK m. 66/1-e.
For persons summoned to give a statement as a suspect in an aggravated fraud investigation, being aware of the rights they have in the first 24 hours is important for building a sound defence strategy.
The Relationship Between IBAN/Account Renting and Fraud
In fraud committed through computer systems, bank accounts (IBANs) belonging to other people are frequently used to transfer the money obtained. A person who allows their own account to be used for this purpose may, according to the circumstances of the particular case, incur liability for aiding the offence or under a separate offence type, even if they were unaware that they were participating in the offence of fraud; moreover, acts directed at concealing the source of the money obtained may also be assessed separately in terms of the offence of laundering assets derived from crime. For this reason, opening one’s bank account to the use of third parties in return for a fee may give rise to serious criminal liability, even though it may appear to be an innocuous transaction. This method, known in practice as “account renting” (hesap kiralama), is a technique to which fraud networks frequently resort in order to cover their tracks; for this reason the investigating authorities examine meticulously whether the account holder genuinely had knowledge, how often and in what amounts the account was used, and whether the account holder obtained any financial return from those transactions.
Illustrative Example (Hypothetical)
The following example is entirely fictitious and is not based on any real client or file; it has been prepared purely by way of illustration in order to explain how the offence is applied in practice.
In a hypothetical case, a person (Z) receives an SMS from an unknown number stating that “a suspicious transaction has been detected on your account” and asking them to click on the link in the message. The link directs them to a fake page closely resembling the interface of their actual bank; (Z) enters their card details on that page and shortly afterwards notices that money has been withdrawn from their account. The examination carried out establishes that the perpetrator personally deceived the victim and thereby caused them to enter the information of their own volition, that is to say used the computer system as an instrument of deception; for this reason the act is assessed as aggravated fraud under TCK m. 158/1-f and the file is heard before the criminal court of first instance. This hypothetical example shows how the legal classification of a fraud committed by way of phishing is carried out.
In the same hypothetical case, if the perpetrator had in no way deceived (Z) but had taken advantage of a security vulnerability in the bank’s server to gain unauthorised access to the account directly and had obtained the money in that way, the act, containing no deception, would have been assessed not under TCK m. 158 but under TCK m. 244, as the offence of interference with a computer system. This second possibility shows how, even though the outcome (the loss of the money) is the same, the difference in the manner of commission can fundamentally change the classification of the offence and hence the sentencing provisions to be applied.
Points to Note in the Defence
From the point of view of the defence, it must first be established whether the act genuinely contains the element of deceiving a person or whether it is in the nature of direct unauthorised access to a system (that is, whether TCK m. 158 or TCK m. 244 applies). Secondly, where indirect participation such as IBAN renting is alleged, the perpetrator’s intent must be established by concrete evidence. Thirdly, assessing the possibility of making good the loss at the investigation stage is an important part of the defence strategy, since it may lead to a significant reduction in sentence under TCK m. 168. Fourthly, in serial files involving more than one victim, it is necessary to examine in respect of each victim separately whether the elements of the offence (deception, misleading, loss) have materialised; whether the provisions on the chain offence (zincirleme suç, TCK m. 43) are to be applied also becomes important at this point.
For the procedural similarities between offences committed through computer systems and other technically complex offence types, you may also look at our article on the offence of causing zoning pollution. The current text of the TCK can be reached from the TBMM legislation page, and precedent decisions from the Yargıtay (the Court of Cassation) Decision Search system.
Another economic offence frequently encountered alongside fraud is the dishonoured cheque; on that subject you may look at our article dealing with the complaint procedure for a dishonoured cheque. In files in which the victim’s loss is intertwined with administrative sanctions, our article on the avenue of action against tax and administrative fines may also be instructive. Where personal data has been obtained in the course of fraud committed through computer systems, our article examining the data breach notification obligation under the KVKK (the Personal Data Protection Law) may also be consulted. The current text of Articles 157 and 158 of the TCK, concerning the offence of fraud, can be reached via mevzuat.gov.tr.
What Will the Other Side Do?
In fraud and aggravated fraud cases the defendant’s side also has a defence strategy; the victim being prepared for that strategy ensures that evidence is gathered at the right time.
The defence that the act is no more than a commercial dispute. The defendant’s side may argue that the relationship is a contractual disagreement and that the element of deception is absent. This allegation is met by establishing the deceptive conduct with concrete evidence, message records and bank movements.
The defence that the victim failed to exercise due care. It may be argued that the victim was easily deceived. In the aggravated forms the legal value of this defence is limited; the conformity of the deception with the criteria for aggravated fraud is shown by a technical expert examination.
The defence that the loss has been made good, effective remorse. The perpetrator may compensate the loss and seek a reduction in sentence. In that case, at what stage and to what extent the loss was made good is examined on the basis of concrete documents.
The defence that no computer system was used. This may be raised as an objection to the aggravated form. This allegation is met by IP records, operator records and a technical expert report.
The defence that the offence has been wrongly classified. The defendant’s side may argue that the act falls within simple rather than aggravated fraud. This allegation is assessed by comparing whether the method used (a computer system, trust in a public institution and the like) meets the criteria for an aggravated form against the facts of the particular case.
Which defence comes to the fore varies according to the manner in which the act was committed and the digital evidence available; for this reason it is important that messages, screenshots and bank records are preserved securely at the outset of the process. Preserving correspondence, messages and payment records in their original form together with their time stamps makes it easier to anticipate which defence will subsequently be raised and to prepare against it. To assess in advance which defence your file will meet, you may get in touch.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the essential difference between simple fraud and aggravated fraud?
In simple fraud (TCK m. 157) deception by deceptive conduct occurs under the general conditions; in aggravated fraud (TCK m. 158) one of the particular situations enumerated in the Law is present (use of a computer system, abuse of a public institution and the like) and the penalty is heavier.
Which offence does being defrauded by a fake bank link fall within?
If the victim has been deceived by way of a fake link and has transferred information or money of their own volition, that act is assessed as aggravated fraud through computer systems under TCK m. 158/1-f.
Is mediation possible in aggravated fraud?
No. Only simple fraud (TCK m. 157) appears in the catalogue of offences subject to mediation under CMK m. 253; aggravated fraud falls outside the scope of mediation.
In which court is the case heard?
Following the amendment made by Law no. 7571, aggravated fraud cases are heard before the criminal court of first instance; files that were before an aggravated criminal court before the Law entered into force continue to be heard at the stage they have reached.
If I repay the loss, will I escape punishment?
Making good the loss in full before the investigation is completed may secure a substantial reduction in sentence under TCK m. 168; this does not, however, mean that the case is discontinued altogether, and it is assessed according to the particular circumstances of the file.
I only gave my IBAN to someone else, am I liable as well?
Providing an account knowing, or where one ought to have known, that it would be used for the purpose of fraud may give rise to liability for aiding the offence or under a separate offence, according to the circumstances of the particular case; this matter must be assessed on the facts of the file.
What should I do first when I realise I have been defrauded?
You should first call the bank and ask for the transaction to be stopped, then record evidence such as screenshots and message records before it is lost and apply, by way of a criminal complaint petition, to the nearest police station or to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor.
How is the sentence increased for a perpetrator who defrauds more than one person?
Where the offence is committed jointly by three or more persons the sentence is increased by one half, and where it is committed within the framework of the activity of a criminal organisation it is increased by one full measure; in addition, where the same perpetrator acts against more than one victim at different times, the provisions on the chain offence may come into play.
Conclusion
In fraud committed through computer systems, determining the correct classification of the offence directly affects the course of the case for the victim and for the suspect/defendant alike. The boundaries between aggravated fraud and simple fraud, and between these and the other offences committed against computer systems, should be clarified and assessed file by file in the light of current legislative changes. For the examination of your file on this subject you may obtain information about our criminal law practice area. For parties involved in the process, whether as victim or as suspect/defendant, the gathering of evidence at an early stage and the correct classification of the offence are factors that directly affect the outcome of the file. Your particular situation requires assessment on the facts of your own file.
Time Limits Table
| Time limit | How long | Starting point |
|---|---|---|
| Limitation of prosecution (within the scope of TCK m.66/1-e) | 8 years | From the date on which the offence was committed |
| Limitation of prosecution (within the scope of TCK m.66/1-d, aggravated forms) | 15 years | From the date on which the offence was committed |
Sources
- tbmm.gov.tr
- Yargıtay (the Court of Cassation) Decision Search System
- Legislation Information System (mevzuat.gov.tr)
Related Articles
- The Rights of the Suspect at the Statement and Interrogation Stage: The First 24 Hours
- The Offence of Causing Zoning Pollution (TCK 184): Unlicensed Construction
- Complaint for a Dishonoured Cheque: Time Limit, Judicial Fine and Payment
- Action Against Tax and Administrative Fines: Time Limits and Stay of Execution
- KVKK Data Breach Notification: The 72-Hour Rule and Article 12
This article is for general information purposes and does not take the place of legal advice. Your particular situation requires a separate assessment of your file.
This article has been prepared on the basis of the legislation in force as at 17.09.2026.
Av. Yahya Köse
Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, Real Estate Law, Lease and Eviction Law, Criminal Law, Dispute Resolution, Preventive Law
View the lawyer’s profile
