Penalty for Writing Bad Checks in Turkey (2025)

In the Turkish legal system, a check is not a credit instrument, but an order of payment that must be paid on sight, without any conditions. Because issuing a bad check fundamentally undermines commercial trust, this act is regulated as a specific type of crime under the (former) Law No. 3167 and the current Check Law No. 5941. This crime imposes an “objective” liability focused on the act of the check bouncing, regardless of whether the issuer had fraudulent intent.

This article will analyze in detail the conditions under which the crime of issuing a bad check is constituted as of 2025, who is held criminally liable, the severe penalties for this crime, and the available legal remedies for both debtors and creditors.

Legal Nature and Validity Requirements of a Check

The absolute prerequisite for the crime of issuing a bad check to occur is the existence of a legally “valid” check.

What are the Mandatory Elements for a Valid Check?

According to Article 780 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) No. 6102, for a document to be considered a check, it must contain the following elements:

1. The Word “Check”: The document must explicitly contain the word “check” (or its equivalent if in a foreign language).

2. Unconditional Order to Pay: It must contain an unconditional order to pay a specific amount.

3. Drawee Bank: The trade name of the bank that will make the payment must be specified.

4. Date of Issue: The day, month, and year the check was issued must be stated.

5. Signature of the Drawer (Keşideci): The handwritten (wet) signature of the person issuing the check must be present.

6. Bank Serial Number and QR Code: It must have a serial number and a QR code provided by the bank.

Additionally, Law No. 5941 requires extra information such as the account holder’s T.C. Identification Number (TCKN) or Tax Identification Number (VKN) on the check leaf.

Effect of Missing Elements on Criminal Liability

The absence of one of the mandatory elements listed in TCC Art. 780 (especially the word “check” or a wet signature) disqualifies the document from being a check. A document that does not qualify as a check cannot be subject to the special execution proceedings for negotiable instruments, and more importantly, even if an “insufficient funds” transaction is processed for this document, the crime defined in Law No. 5941 does not occur.

This constitutes the most fundamental defense mechanism for the accused. If a deficiency is found, a verdict of acquittal must be rendered as the material element of the crime is not met.

What are the Conditions for the Crime of Issuing a Bad Check?

For the crime under Article 5 of Law No. 5941 to occur, several conditions must be met simultaneously.

1. Mandatory Presentation to the Bank Within the Legal Period

The first condition for the crime to occur is that the check must be presented by the holder (creditor) to the drawee bank within the legal presentation periods specified in TCC Art. 796. These periods are:

• 10 days if the check is payable in the same place it was issued,

• 1 month if it is payable in a different place (within the same continent),

• 3 months if the place of issue and payment are on different continents.

If an “insufficient funds” transaction is processed for a check presented to the bank after these periods, the elements of the crime are not met.

Important Note: If a post-dated check is presented before its issue date and bounces, the crime does not occur. For criminal liability to arise, the check must be presented again within the legal presentation period (e.g., 10 days) after the date written on it.

2. “Insufficient Funds” Transaction Processed by the Bank

The most critical element for the completion of the crime is the “insufficient funds” (karşılıksızdır) endorsement processed by the bank on the back of the check. The Court of Cassation defines this as an “objective condition of punishability.” In other words, even if the check lacks funds, the crime is not considered committed unless this procedure is duly completed by the bank.

The bank is obligated to perform this transaction for a check presented within the legal period that lacks sufficient funds (barring exceptions like forgery). A bank official who unlawfully refuses this transaction commits a separate crime.

3. Lack of Funds (Partial or Total)

The most basic element is the lack of sufficient money in the checking account at the time of presentation. There is no difference between a total lack of funds and a partial lack of funds for the crime to occur.

Important Note: If the bank cannot make payment because the account is blocked by a lien (haciz) or a court injunction, even if there is sufficient money, this is still considered “insufficient funds,” and the crime is constituted.

4. Mental Element (Intent)

This crime can be committed intentionally. It is sufficient for the perpetrator to know (or foresee) and accept that the check will not have sufficient funds in the account upon presentation. The law does not require specific fraudulent intent. This means that even a well-intentioned drawer may face criminal liability due to an unexpected lien on their account. The crime is completed not when the check is issued, but when it is presented and endorsed as “uncovered.”

Prosecution of the Crime: The Complaint Process

The crime of issuing a bad check is subject to complaint. A complaint is a prerequisite for prosecution.

Who Can File a Complaint? (The Authorized Holder)

The right to complain belongs exclusively to the “authorized holder” (yetkili hamil) who presented the check to the bank within the legal period and had the “insufficient funds” transaction processed. According to the established precedents of the Court of Cassation, a person who acquires the check after the “insufficient funds” transaction has been processed cannot file a criminal complaint, even though they acquire the right to the debt.

Critical Complaint Deadlines (Forfeiture Periods)

The right to complain is subject to very strict forfeiture periods (which extinguish the right):

1. The holder must file the complaint within 3 months from the date they learned that the “insufficient funds” transaction was processed.

2. In any case, this complaint must be filed within 1 year from the date the act was committed (i.e., the date the “insufficient funds” transaction was processed).

Missing these deadlines makes criminal prosecution impossible.

Who is Criminally Liable? (Identifying the Perpetrator)

Who the perpetrator is differs depending on whether the check is issued by a natural person or a legal entity.

Liability of Natural Persons

If the check account holder is a natural person, the perpetrator and the person criminally liable is the account holder themselves. A natural person cannot appoint a representative or proxy to issue checks on their behalf; even if they do, the account holder remains criminally liable.

Liability in Legal Entities (Companies)

This is where the most confusion arises. If the check account holder is a legal entity (e.g., a corporation), criminal liability belongs to:

1. Primarily, the member of the managing organ assigned to manage the legal entity’s financial affairs (e.g., a specifically appointed board member).

2. If no such specific assignment has been made, all natural persons comprising the managing organ (e.g., all board members in a joint-stock company, all managers in a limited liability company) are jointly and severally liable.

The Issue of the “Authorized Person at the Time of Presentation”

The most critical point in corporate liability is the timing used to determine the responsible person. According to the established precedents of the Court of Cassation, criminal liability rests not with the person who actually signed the check or was in charge when it was issued, but with the person who was the financial manager or member of the managing organ at the moment the check was presented to the bank and marked as “uncovered.”

This creates an unforeseeable risk for company executives. For example:

1. A manager (A) issues a post-dated check while in office.

2. Manager (A) leaves the company before the date on the check, and a new manager (B) is appointed.

3. The check is presented while manager (B) is in office and bounces due to the company’s financial state.

4. In this scenario, the new manager (B), who never saw the check, will be prosecuted as the perpetrator of the crime, simply because they were the person “obligated to have the funds available” at the time of presentation.

This practice was challenged before the Constitutional Court for violating the “individuality of criminal responsibility,” but the Court ruled that the regulation is constitutional.

Penalties and Legal Consequences of a Bad Check

The act of issuing a bad check results in severe multi-layered consequences.

1. Criminal Penalty: Judicial Fine (APC)

The primary penalty for the crime is a judicial fine. The court imposes a judicial fine of up to 1500 days for each bad check. There are two rules for this fine:

• Upper Limit: The penalty cannot exceed 1500 days.

• Lower Limit: The judicial fine imposed cannot be less than the uncovered amount of the check. (The Constitutional Court annulled the inclusion of interest and costs in this minimum amount in 2017).

The judge multiplies the number of days by a daily rate (between 20 TL and 100 TL based on the person’s economic status) to determine the final fine.

2. Non-Payment of the Fine: Direct Imprisonment

This is the harshest sanction. Normally, unpaid judicial fines can be converted to community service. However, under the Check Law, if the judicial fine for a bad check is not paid, this option is skipped, and the fine is directly converted to imprisonment.

The maximum term of imprisonment converted from a fine is 3 years for a single offense and cannot exceed a total of 5 years for multiple offenses.

3. Security Measure: Ban on Issuing Checks and Opening Accounts

Along with the judicial fine, the court also imposes a ban on issuing checks and opening check accounts on the defendant. This ban prevents the person from opening new accounts and drawing checks from existing ones. Banned individuals also cannot hold positions in the management organs of capital companies.

Issuing a check while under this ban constitutes a separate crime, punishable by 1 to 3 years of imprisonment.

4. Legal Consequences (Execution Proceedings and Bank Liability)

Separate from the criminal process, the holder can pursue legal action to collect the debt:

• Execution Proceedings for Negotiable Instruments: The holder can initiate a fast-track execution proceeding against the drawer (and endorsers). The objection period is 5 days and must be made directly to the Execution Court.

• Bank’s Legal Guarantee Amount: The bank is obligated to pay the holder a minimum amount (legal guarantee amount), which is updated annually, for each bad check leaf presented in time.

Table 1: Summary of Penalties for a Bad Check

Trial Process and Legal Remedies

Competent Court: Execution Criminal Court

The court responsible for hearing cases arising from the crime of issuing a bad check is the Execution Criminal Court (İcra Ceza Mahkemesi). The authorized venue can be the place of presentation, where the account was opened, the defendant’s residence, or the complainant’s residence.

Special Trial Procedure

The trial follows a special, faster procedure under the Execution and Bankruptcy Law (İİK). A notable feature is that the complainant (or their lawyer) must attend the hearings. If the complainant fails to attend a hearing without a valid excuse, the court will dismiss the case.

Table 2: Critical Deadlines in the Bad Check Process

Debt Payment: Legal Protections and Solutions

The law provides mechanisms that encourage payment of the debt and allow the perpetrator to escape criminal liability.

1. Active Repentance (Payment of the Debt with Interest)

This is the most important legal protection for the defendant. To benefit, the uncovered amount of the check plus the commercial default interest (calculated from the legal presentation date) must be paid in full to the creditor.

• Payment During Trial: If payment is made while the trial is ongoing, the Execution Criminal Court will dismiss the case.

• Payment After Conviction: If payment is made after the conviction has become final, the court will order the annulment of the judgment with all its consequences. This decision stops the execution of the judicial fine, lifts the check ban, and clears the conviction from the criminal record.

2. Effect of Withdrawing the Complaint

Since the crime is subject to complaint, the holder’s withdrawal of the complaint produces the same legal consequences as active repentance. The case will be dismissed, or the judgment will be annulled.

3. Procedure for Lifting the Check Issuing Ban

The primary ways to lift the ban are active repentance or withdrawal of the complaint. Additionally, a person can request the lifting of the ban from the court 3 years after the sentence has been fully served, and in any case, 10 years after the ban was imposed.

Conclusion and Strategic Assessment

The crime of issuing a bad check is a type of objective liability crime, focusing on the result (non-payment) rather than the perpetrator’s intent. Its trial is conducted through a special, rapid procedure in Execution Criminal Courts. Its sanctions are a hybrid structure, combining criminal (fine), administrative (ban), and civil (execution) elements. The dual purpose of the law is to protect public trust in checks, thereby safeguarding commercial life, and to ensure the creditor receives their payment as quickly as possible through institutions like active repentance.