MASAK Freeze vs. Prosecutor’s Seizure Order: What Is the Difference?

For someone who receives a notice from their bank saying “a freeze has been placed on your account,” the first question is almost always the same: how long will this last? Under Article 19/A of Law No. 5549, a MASAK freeze is limited by statute to just 7 business days, whereas a seizure order issued by a public prosecutor or a court under Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) can run for 12 to 36 months, depending on how the investigation unfolds. The difference is not just one of duration; the two measures differ entirely in legal nature, in the authority behind them, and in the available route of objection.

What Is a MASAK Freeze and What Is Its Legal Basis?

Turkey’s Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) reviews suspicious transaction reports submitted by banks and, where it suspects money laundering or terrorist financing, may temporarily suspend dealings with the assets in an account through an administrative measure. This power derives from Article 19/A of Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime, and it does not require a prior court order.

Consider an example: the holder of an account used for a small e-commerce business in Istanbul receives a series of irregular-looking transfers from abroad at short intervals. The bank files a suspicious transaction report, and an administrative freeze is placed on the account. At this stage no criminal investigation needs to have been opened yet; what is in play is MASAK’s own review authority.

What Is a Prosecutor’s Freeze (CMK Art. 128), and How Does It Differ from a MASAK Freeze?

A prosecutor’s freeze rests on entirely different ground: it is a judicial seizure measure imposed under Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as part of an ongoing investigation or prosecution. Here the relevant authority is not MASAK but the public prosecutor handling the case, or the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) ruling on the prosecutor’s request.

Take a concrete scenario: in a fraud investigation, funds sent by a victim are traced to an “intermediary account,” and the prosecutor orders that account seized. Even if the account holder had no knowledge of the underlying scheme, the balance may remain frozen under this judicial measure until the investigation concludes. The legal remedies available to people caught up in such situations are addressed separately in our article on the steps fraud victims can take.

Key Differences Between a MASAK Freeze and a Prosecutor’s Freeze

Placing the two measures side by side makes clear where the confusion in practice arises. When an account is first frozen administratively by MASAK and the file is then referred to the prosecutor’s office, the account holder is not dealing with a single process but with two distinct legal regimes in succession.

How Do Freeze Periods and Extensions Work?

The 7-business-day period for a MASAK freeze is set out clearly in the law, but it does not necessarily end automatically. If MASAK’s review links the matter to a suspected offense, it refers the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the prosecutor may then extend the freeze for up to 30 days. From that point on, the measure is no longer administrative but has moved onto judicial ground.

A separate rule worth noting applies specifically to cybercrime: Article 128/A, added to the Code of Criminal Procedure on 25 December 2025, introduces a suspension measure capped at 48 hours for accounts holding proceeds obtained through a cybercrime. In a cryptocurrency fraud investigation, for instance, the account to which funds were transferred may face a very short but fast-moving suspension under this provision, a separate and more recent mechanism distinct from a classic Article 128 seizure.

Which Objection Route Applies to Which Type of Freeze?

Anyone who learns that their account has been frozen should first establish which authority issued the measure, since the correct forum for objection depends on that. A seizure ordered by a prosecutor or a court is challenged before the criminal judgeship of peace under CMK Articles 128 and 267, and the objection must be filed within 7 days of notification or of becoming aware of the decision.

The position is different for a MASAK administrative freeze: because its duration is capped by law, it is often more practical simply to wait for the outcome of MASAK’s review. If the review drags on, however, or the file is referred to the prosecutor’s office, the moment the measure converts into a judicial one, the route of objection before the criminal judgeship of peace becomes available. Correctly identifying that transition point is critical so the account holder does not lose valuable time.

Common Pitfalls in Practice: Which Approach Is Right?

The most common problem in practice is that account holders conflate the two measures and apply to the wrong authority. Going directly to a criminal court to challenge a MASAK administrative freeze generally achieves nothing, since no criminal proceeding yet exists. Some practitioners advise doing nothing at the MASAK stage at all, simply waiting out the statutory period given how short it is.

In our view, that approach is not always correct. In particular, where the account holder’s business activity is suffering serious harm during the freeze, submitting written explanations and supporting documents to MASAK to help move the review along is a more sensible course than passive waiting. MASAK’s discretion under Article 19/A can be shaped by the information and documents the account holder provides, which increases the chance the measure is resolved at the administrative stage before ever reaching the prosecutor’s office.

Conclusion: What to Do When Your Account Is Frozen

In short, determining whether a freeze on an account originates from MASAK or from a prosecutor is the first and most important step. If the notice comes from the bank under Law No. 5549, the process is administrative, short, and bounded by statute. If, on the other hand, it stems from an investigation file under Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relevant authorities are the public prosecutor’s office and the criminal judgeship of peace.

In practice, the sequence to follow is this: first clarify the source of the measure and the provision it relies on; if it is still at the MASAK stage, support the administrative process with the relevant documents; if it has already moved to the judicial stage, file an objection with the criminal judgeship of peace within the statutory deadline. Because each case turns on its own facts, individual assessment is essential.