Embezzlement and Breach of Trust in Turkish Criminal Law

If an employee, manager or business partner in Türkiye has used company money or property for the wrong purpose, the relevant offence is usually breach of trust (güveni kötüye kullanma) under Article 155 of the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu No. 5237), not embezzlement. True embezzlement (zimmet) under Article 247 applies only to public officials who handle public funds, so it almost never fits a private company dispute. This guide explains the difference in plain terms, walks through the elements each offence needs, looks at the corporate setting where a director or staff member misuses assets, and covers the complaint requirement and how Turkish law approaches penalties. Throughout, we define each Turkish term in everyday language and keep penalty figures general, because the exact range and any aggravation depend on the facts and the current text of the law.

Breach of trust vs. embezzlement: the core distinction

The single most common confusion in this area is treating every misuse of company money as "embezzlement." In Turkish criminal law the two offences live in different parts of the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu No. 5237) and protect different things.

Breach of trust (güveni kötüye kullanma) is set out in Article 155 TCKTCKTurkish Criminal Code No. 5237The statute that defines crimes and their penalties in Türkiye — including fraud, breach of trust, forgery, laundering and offences committed through an organisation.Glossary →. It applies to anyone — a private individual, an employee, a manager, a business partner — who was lawfully given possession of property (or the right to use it) for a defined purpose, and then keeps it, disposes of it, or uses it contrary to that purpose, to the detriment of the owner.

Embezzlement (zimmet) is set out in Article 247 TCK and sits among the offences against public administration. It can only be committed by a public official (kamu görevlisi) who appropriates money or property that was entrusted to them, or that they could reach, because of their public duty.

The elements of breach of trust (TCK 155)

For a basic breach of trust to exist, several things generally need to be present at the same time:

• Lawful prior possession. The property must have been handed over to the accused legally and willingly — for instance, a company laptop given to an employee, goods left for safekeeping, or money transferred to be used for a stated purpose. If the property was taken without consent, the matter looks more like theft (hırsızlık), a different offence.
• A defined purpose or limit on use. The handover came with an understood purpose or boundary — to hold, to use in a certain way, to deliver onward, or to manage on the owner's behalf.
• Use contrary to that purpose, or refusal to return. The accused then treats the property as their own, disposes of it, or uses it for something other than the agreed purpose, or denies holding it when asked to give it back.
• Harm to the owner. The conduct causes a loss to the person who entrusted the property.
• Intent (kast). Breach of trust is an intentional offence. An honest mistake, a genuine accounting error, or a good-faith commercial dispute is not the same as the deliberate diversion the offence targets.

Service-based (aggravated) breach of trust

Article 155 TCK distinguishes between the basic form and an aggravated form. The aggravated form — often called service-based breach of trust (hizmet sebebiyle güveni kötüye kullanma) — applies when the trust that allowed the accused to hold the property arose from a profession, an art, a trade, a service relationship, or a duty of safekeeping.

This is the form most relevant to companies. When an employee, accountant, manager or director was able to control company assets precisely because of their role, the law sees a stronger breach of confidence and treats the offence more seriously. Typical fact patterns include:

• A finance or accounting employee diverting company funds to a personal or third-party account.
• A manager using corporate assets, inventory or client deposits for private benefit.
• A director or signatory transferring company property outside the company's interest.

The aggravated form carries a heavier penalty range than the basic form, and — importantly — its prosecution does not depend on a private complaint in the same way the basic form does (see below).

Embezzlement (zimmet, TCK 247) and why it rarely fits a company case

Embezzlement under Article 247 TCK requires a public official (kamu görevlisi) who appropriates property entrusted to them through their public duty. The concept of "public official" in Turkish law is defined functionally and can extend beyond classic civil servants to certain people performing public functions, but it does not cover an ordinary private-sector employee or company director acting within a private business.

So in the typical scenario a foreign business faces — money or assets misused inside a private Turkish company — the correct framework is breach of trust (TCK 155), not embezzlement. Zimmet becomes relevant only where the person involved holds a public office or performs a public service of the kind the statute contemplates (for example, certain roles in public institutions or state-owned structures).

The corporate context: a director or employee misusing company assets

Most cross-border instances of these offences arise inside a company. A useful way to read the situation is to ask three questions:

1. How did the person come to hold the asset? If it was handed over lawfully because of their job, and then misused, that points to service-based breach of trust under TCK 155.
2. Was deception used to obtain it? If the asset was acquired through a false pretence rather than entrusted, the matter may be fraud instead.
3. Is a public office involved? Only then does embezzlement (zimmet) under TCK 247 come into play.

In practice, a corporate investigation may surface several overlapping issues at once — for example, breach of trust together with falsified records. Where company books or invoices have been manipulated, separate offences relating to documents and to tax records can also arise, including matters under the Tax Procedure Law (Vergi Usul Kanunu No. 213). If funds appear to have been moved or layered to disguise their origin, anti-money-laundering rules under Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime, and questions about negotiable instruments under the Cheque Law (Law No. 5941), may also become relevant.

The complaint requirement and procedure

One of the most important practical differences between the forms of these offences is whether the state prosecutes automatically or only on the victim's complaint.

• Basic breach of trust (TCK 155). The basic form is generally subject to complaint (şikâyet). That means the prosecution typically depends on the victim filing a formal complaint within the legal time limit that runs from when they learn of the act and the offender. If that window is missed, the right to pursue the basic offence can be lost.
• Aggravated / service-based breach of trust. The aggravated form is generally prosecuted by the state on its own initiative, without needing a private complaint, although a victim's report still matters in practice for triggering and supporting the investigation.
• Embezzlement (zimmet, TCK 247). As an offence against public administration, it is prosecuted by the state directly.

The investigation itself follows the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu No. 5271). A complaint or report goes to the public prosecutor's office, which gathers evidence and decides whether to file an indictment. Foreign victims can act through a Turkish lawyer holding a power of attorney; you do not have to be physically present in Türkiye to start the process.

How Turkish law approaches penalties

Penalties for these offences are set by the Turkish Penal Code and depend on which offence and which form applies, plus any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. We keep this qualitative on purpose, because the exact ranges and any thresholds depend on the current text of the law and the specific facts:

• The basic form of breach of trust carries a lighter range than the aggravated form.
• The service-based (aggravated) form carries a heavier range, reflecting the abuse of a professional or employment-based trust.
• Embezzlement (zimmet) is treated severely as an offence against public administration, with its own range and possible aggravating and mitigating factors built into Article 247 and the surrounding provisions.

Courts also weigh factors such as the value involved, whether the loss was repaid before judgment, and the defendant's conduct. Recovery of the misused asset and any criminal sentence are separate questions — a criminal case does not automatically make the victim whole, so a parallel civil claim or participation as an intervening party is often part of the strategy.

What to do if you are affected

Whether you are the company that lost assets or the individual under suspicion, the early steps are similar in spirit: stabilise the facts, preserve evidence, and get the legal characterisation right before you act.

• If you are the victim (e.g. a foreign company): secure documents, contracts, transfer records, emails and accounting data; identify the exact date you learned of the act (for the complaint clock); and take advice on whether to file a criminal complaint, a civil recovery claim, or both.
• If you are under investigation or suspicion: do not give statements without counsel, gather the records that show the lawful purpose and your authority over the asset, and have a lawyer assess whether the conduct even meets the elements of the offence — many disputes are commercial, not criminal.

Frequently asked questions