Theft Crime and Penalties in Turkey *2025 – Atty. Ozan Soylu

Theft crime in Turkey represents one of the most prevalent offenses within the legal system, with roots deeply embedded in the country’s legal traditions. The Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) approaches theft in a structured manner, balancing the protection of property rights with considerations that influence culpability and sentencing.

This comprehensive framework reflects the evolution from Ottoman legal codes to the modern republic’s Law No. 5237 adopted in 2004.

In this article, we’ll explore the essential elements of theft crime, the various types and classifications, aggravating circumstances, penalty structures, and important judicial interpretations that shape how theft cases are handled in Turkey.

 

The Legal Framework: Turkish Criminal Code Articles 141-147

The current legal framework for theft crimes is comprehensively detailed in Articles 141 through 147 of the Turkish Criminal Code. This framework establishes:

• Article 141: Defines the basic form of theft as “taking movable property belonging to another without the possessor’s consent, with the purpose of deriving benefit for oneself or others.” This primary definition carries a prison sentence of one to three years.
• Article 142: Outlines qualified (aggravated) forms of theft with increased penalties ranging from three to seven years and five to ten years imprisonment depending on specific circumstances.
• Article 143: Addresses theft committed at night, which results in a penalty increase of one-half.
• Article 144: Covers less severely punished forms of theft, including theft of jointly owned property or theft committed to collect a legitimate debt.
• Article 145: Enables penalty reductions or exemptions when the stolen property has little value.
• Article 146: Deals with theft for temporary use, where the property is taken only to be used temporarily and then returned.
• Article 147: Establishes necessity as a mitigating factor when theft is committed to meet an urgent and severe need.

This comprehensive framework demonstrates the Turkish legal system’s nuanced approach to theft crimes, acknowledging various factors that might affect the severity of the offense. The code distinguishes between simple theft and qualified theft based on factors such as the method used, the vulnerability of the victim, the nature of the stolen property, and the location where the theft occurred.

Additionally, the Turkish Criminal Code includes provisions for effective remorse (Article 168), allowing for significant sentence reductions when the perpetrator voluntarily compensates the victim for damages before or during prosecution.

 

Definition and Essential Elements of Theft Crime

Basic Definition Under Article 141

The Turkish Criminal Code (TCC) provides a clear definition of theft crime in Article 141. According to this provision, theft is defined as “taking a movable property belonging to another person without the consent of its possessor, with the intention of deriving benefit for oneself or another.” This basic definition establishes the foundation for all theft crimes in the Turkish legal system.

The punishment for the basic form of theft is imprisonment from one to three years. This fundamental definition separates theft from other property crimes and establishes the key elements that must be proven for a conviction. The crime is considered complete when the perpetrator takes full control of the property and removes it from the possession of its rightful holder.

A crucial aspect of theft under Turkish law is that it requires an active taking of property without consent, distinguishing it from fraud or breach of trust where initial possession may be obtained lawfully. The taking must involve establishing new possession by the offender, ending the previous possessor’s control over the property.

The Concept of Movable Property

For theft crime to occur, the object must qualify as a movable property with economic value. The Turkish Criminal Code adopts a broader definition of movable property than civil law, focusing on items that can be physically moved from one place to another. Examples include vehicles, household items, money, jewelry, and electronic devices.

While immovable properties (like land or buildings) cannot be the subject of theft, components of immovable property can be if they are separated and made movable. For instance, stealing fixtures from a building, harvested crops from land, or minerals extracted from the ground can constitute theft, as these items have been converted into movable property.

The property must have some economic value, but Turkish courts have established that this value need not be substantial. Even items with minimal economic worth but significant sentimental value can be the subject of theft. However, if the stolen item has particularly low value, courts may apply Article 145 to reduce the penalty or even waive punishment entirely, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Possession and Ownership Rights

In theft crimes, Turkish law protects possession rights rather than merely ownership rights. The concept of possession (zilyetlik) refers to having actual physical control over property, regardless of whether the possessor is the legal owner. This means that theft can occur even when the property is taken from someone who is not the rightful owner but merely has possession.

The victim of theft is the person who had possession of the property, not necessarily the owner. In cases where possession and ownership belong to different individuals, the owner is considered the party suffering damage from the crime but not the direct victim. This distinction is important for determining who has the right to file a complaint in cases where prosecution depends on a complaint.

Interestingly, possession obtained illegally is also protected under theft provisions. For example, if Person A steals a watch from Person B, and then Person C steals the same watch from Person A, Person C has committed theft against Person A, despite A’s illegal possession. The only exception is when the original owner reclaims their property from the thief, which is not considered theft.

Intent and Purpose in Theft Crime

Theft is exclusively an intentional crime in Turkish law and cannot be committed through negligence. The perpetrator must act with general intent (kast), knowing that the property belongs to another person and that they are taking it without consent. This requires awareness of both the action (taking) and its unlawful nature.

Beyond general intent, theft also requires a special purpose (özel kast) – the intention to derive benefit for oneself or another person. This benefit need not be economic; it can also be moral, social, or even emotional satisfaction. The actual achievement of benefit is not necessary for the crime to be complete; the intention alone suffices.

The law does not require that the perpetrator intend to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Even temporary taking for use can constitute theft, although Article 146 provides for reduced penalties in cases where the perpetrator intends to return the property after temporary use (known as “use theft” or “kullanma hırsızlığı“).

If the perpetrator mistakenly believes that the property belongs to them or is abandoned, they lack the necessary intent for theft. Similarly, if they believe they have consent to take the property, the crime is not established. These situations fall under error of fact provisions in Article 30 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which may eliminate criminal liability.

 

 

Penalties and Sentencing for Theft Crimes

Theft Crime Types and Penalties in Turkey

Type of Theft	Penalty Range
Simple Theft (Article 141)	1-3 years imprisonment
Qualified Theft (First Degree) (Article 142/1) Theft in public institutions/places of worship, public transportation, of disaster prevention items, or of items left in the open	3-7 years imprisonment
Qualified Theft (Second Degree) (Article 142/2) Theft by exploiting vulnerability, snatching, during disasters, using counterfeit keys, through information systems, impersonating officials, against livestock, or from locked/enclosed spaces	5-10 years imprisonment
Theft of Energy Resources (Article 142/3) Theft of energy in liquid or gas form or from energy facilities	5-12 years imprisonment
Theft Committed at Night (Article 143) Theft committed between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise	Base penalty increased by half
Theft of Jointly Owned Property (Article 144) Theft from jointly owned property or to collect a legally established debt	2 months to 1 year imprisonment or judicial fine
Theft of Low-Value Property (Article 145) When the value of stolen property is minimal	Reduced penalty or waiver of punishment
Theft for Temporary Use (Article 146) Taking property with intention to return after temporary use	Up to half of original penalty
Theft Committed Due to Necessity (Article 147) Theft committed to meet a severe and urgent need	Reduced penalty or waiver of punishment
Theft as Part of Organized Crime (Article 142/4) Theft committed as part of organized criminal activity	Base penalty increased by half, plus judicial fine up to 10,000 days

Basic Theft Penalties (1-3 Years)

Under Turkish Criminal Law, the basic form of theft is regulated in Article 141 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCC). According to this provision, a person who takes another’s movable property without the consent of its possessor, with the intention of deriving benefit for themselves or others, shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to three years. This basic penalty applies to simple theft cases that do not contain any aggravating circumstances.

The court determines the exact duration of the sentence within this range by considering factors such as the manner of committing the offense, the intent of the perpetrator, and the circumstances surrounding the crime. When setting the punishment, judges must adhere to the proportionality principle outlined in TCC Article 3, ensuring that the penalty is proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Penalties for Qualified Theft (3-7 Years)

Qualified theft refers to cases where the crime is committed under specific aggravating circumstances listed in Article 142(1) of the TCC. These circumstances include theft:

• Of property in public institutions or places of worship
• On public transportation vehicles or at their departure or arrival points
• Of items prepared to prevent or mitigate the effects of disasters
• Of items customarily left in the open

When theft is committed under any of these circumstances, the penalty increases significantly to imprisonment from three to seven years. This harsher punishment reflects the legislature’s view that these types of theft involve greater social harm or exploit particularly vulnerable situations.

Penalties for Severe Forms of Qualified Theft (5-10 Years)

Article 142(2) of the TCC establishes even more severe penalties for particularly serious forms of qualified theft. When theft is committed:

• By taking advantage of a person’s inability to protect their property or death
• By snatching items carried on or by a person, or through special skill
• By taking advantage of panic during natural disasters or social events
• By using counterfeit keys or other tools to open locks
• Through the use of information systems
• While disguised or impersonating an official
• Against livestock
• Against property secured by locks or kept inside buildings or their annexes

The penalty increases to imprisonment from five to ten years. Additionally, if the theft is committed against a person who is physically or mentally unable to defend themselves, the penalty may be increased by up to one-third.

Furthermore, for theft of energy in liquid or gas form or from facilities for transmission, processing, or storage of such energy, the penalty ranges from five to twelve years imprisonment. If such theft is committed as part of an organized criminal activity, the penalty is increased by half and an additional judicial fine of up to ten thousand days may be imposed.

Factors Affecting Sentence Reduction

Several factors can lead to reduced sentences for theft crimes:

• Attempt: If the theft remains at the attempt stage (not completed), the penalty is reduced by one-fourth to three-fourths according to TCC Article 35.
• Night-time commission: Contrary to many legal systems, committing theft during nighttime is an aggravating factor under Turkish law, with penalties increased by half (Article 143).
• Less severe forms: For theft committed against jointly owned property or to collect a legally established debt, the penalty is reduced to imprisonment from two months to one year or a judicial fine (Article 144).
• Low value of stolen property: When the value of the stolen item is minimal, the court may reduce the penalty or, considering the manner and circumstances of the offense, completely waive punishment (Article 145).

Special Considerations in Theft Cases

Effective Remorse and Penalty Reductions

The Turkish Criminal Code provides significant penalty reductions for defendants who demonstrate effective remorse after committing a theft crime. This concept, regulated in Article 168 of the TCC, applies when the perpetrator:

1. Voluntarily returns the stolen property or fully compensates the victim’s loss
2. Shows remorse before the initiation of prosecution

In such cases, the penalty may be reduced by up to two-thirds. If effective remorse is shown after prosecution has begun but before a verdict is reached, the penalty may be reduced by up to one-half.

For this provision to apply in cases of partial compensation, the victim’s consent is required. The effective remorse mechanism serves both to encourage offenders to make amends and to facilitate the restoration of victims’ losses without prolonged legal proceedings.

The Low Value of Stolen Property

According to Article 145 of the TCC, when the value of the stolen property is minimal, the court has two options:

1. Reduce the penalty proportionally
2. Completely waive punishment, considering the manner and circumstances of the offense

The Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay) has consistently held that Article 145 should be considered in cases involving items of objectively low economic value. However, the court’s discretion is not unlimited – judges must provide adequate and legal justification when applying this provision, considering:

• The objective value of the stolen property
• The financial situation of both the victim and the perpetrator
• The manner of commission and other circumstances of the theft

In one notable Supreme Court decision (6th Criminal Chamber, 2021/4868 E., 2021/20707 K.), the court reversed a lower court’s decision for failing to consider Article 145 in a case involving the theft of 30-60 Turkish Lira.

Theft Between Family Members

Turkish law recognizes that theft committed between family members merits special treatment. Article 167 of the TCC establishes several provisions for these cases:

1. No punishment shall be imposed if theft is committed against:
   • A spouse (unless legally separated)
   • Ascendants or descendants
   • Persons living in the same dwelling who are siblings
2. Prosecution depends on complaint and the penalty is reduced by half if theft is committed against:
   • Legally separated spouses
   • Siblings not living in the same dwelling
   • Relatives up to the second degree living in the same dwelling

This approach reflects the legislature’s recognition that family relationships involve complex dynamics and that the criminal justice system should not always intervene in property disputes between family members. The requirement for a complaint in certain cases gives the victim discretion over whether to pursue criminal proceedings.

Necessity Defense in Theft Cases

Article 147 of the TCC provides a special form of necessity defense for theft crimes. When theft is committed to meet a severe and urgent need, the court may:

1. Reduce the penalty
2. Waive punishment entirely, depending on the specific circumstances of the case

This provision differs from the general necessity defense in Article 25 of the TCC by specifically addressing theft and providing more flexibility in sentencing. For this defense to apply, the defendant must establish that:

• The need was both severe and urgent
• The theft was committed specifically to address that need
• There was no reasonable alternative to obtaining the necessary items

Courts apply this provision cautiously, requiring substantial evidence of genuine necessity rather than mere convenience or preference.

Procedural Aspects of Theft Prosecutions

Complaint Requirements and Limitations

Most theft crimes in Turkey are prosecuted ex officio (without requiring a formal complaint), reflecting the public interest in punishing and deterring such offenses. However, certain forms of theft are subject to complaint by the victim:

1. Theft committed against jointly owned property (TCK Article 144)
2. Theft for collecting a legal debt (TCK Article 144)
3. Temporary use theft (TCK Article 146)
4. Theft between certain family members (TCK Article 167/2)

When a complaint is required, it must be filed within six months from the date the victim becomes aware of both the offense and the offender’s identity, as specified in TCK Article 73. After a complaint is filed, the complainant may withdraw the complaint before a final verdict is rendered, which would terminate the proceedings in complaint-dependent cases.

Reconciliation Procedures

The Turkish criminal justice system has increasingly emphasized alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including reconciliation (uzlaştırma) for certain theft offenses. According to Article 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK):

• Simple theft (TCK Article 141) is subject to reconciliation procedures
• Theft committed against jointly owned property is eligible for reconciliation
• Theft for temporary use falls within reconciliation scope

During reconciliation, a mediator facilitates communication between the victim and the perpetrator to reach an agreement on compensation or other remedies. If reconciliation is achieved, the prosecution is terminated. However, qualified forms of theft, particularly those committed at night, are generally excluded from reconciliation according to Supreme Court precedents.

Statute of Limitations

Theft offenses are subject to specific statute of limitations periods, after which prosecution becomes impossible. According to TCK Article 66:

• For simple theft and less severe forms, the limitation period is eight years
• For qualified theft punishable by more than five years imprisonment, the limitation period is fifteen years

These periods commence from the date the crime is committed. However, if the theft involves continuing acts, the period begins when the last act is committed. For attempted theft, the period starts when the last act constituting the attempt is performed.

The limitation period can be interrupted by certain procedural actions, such as interrogation of the suspect or filing of an indictment, in which case the period starts anew but cannot exceed specified maximum limits.

Jurisdiction and Competent Courts

Theft cases in Turkey are generally tried by Assize Courts (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi), regardless of whether they involve simple or qualified theft. The territorially competent court is typically the one in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.

However, for certain severe forms of qualified theft, particularly those involving:

• Theft of energy in liquid or gas form
• Theft committed as part of organized criminal activity

These cases may fall under the jurisdiction of Heavy Penal Courts (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi).

During the investigation phase, procedures are conducted by the public prosecutor’s office in the location where the theft occurred. If a suspect is caught in a different jurisdiction, local authorities may conduct preliminary procedures before transferring the case to the competent prosecutor’s office.

Legal Consequences Beyond Imprisonment

Conversion to Judicial Fines

Turkish criminal law provides for the conversion of short-term imprisonment sentences to judicial fines in certain circumstances. According to Article 52 of the TCC, imprisonment sentences of one year or less can be converted to judicial fines, calculated based on a daily amount multiplied by the number of days determined by the court.

For theft crimes:

• Simple theft penalties can be converted if the court determines the sentence to be one year (the minimum sentence)
• Qualified theft penalties generally cannot be converted due to their higher minimum sentences, unless mitigating factors (such as attempt or effective remorse) have reduced the final sentence to one year or less

When converting imprisonment to a judicial fine, the court must consider the financial and personal situation of the offender to determine the daily amount, which ranges from 100 to 500 Turkish Lira as of June 1, 2024 (previously 20 to 100 TL). The total number of days cannot exceed 730 for theft offenses.

Suspension of Sentences

The suspension of sentences (erteleme) for theft crimes is governed by Article 51 of the TCC. A sentence can be suspended if:

1. The offender has not been previously sentenced to imprisonment exceeding three months for an intentional crime
2. The court believes the offender will not commit another offense
3. The imprisonment sentence is two years or less

For theft crimes, this typically applies to:

• Simple theft cases where mitigating factors have been considered
• Less severe forms of theft under Article 144
• Cases involving first-time offenders

When a sentence is suspended, the court places the offender under supervision for 1-3 years. If the offender does not commit another intentional crime during this period and complies with all obligations imposed by the court, the sentence is considered executed.

Deferment of the Announcement of the Verdict

The deferment of the announcement of the verdict (HAGB – hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması) is a procedural mechanism regulated in Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK). It can be applied if:

1. The offender has not been previously convicted of an intentional crime
2. The court believes the offender will not reoffend
3. The theft has been fully compensated
4. The sentence imposed is imprisonment of two years or less or a judicial fine

When HAGB is granted for theft offenses, the verdict is not formally announced and the offender is placed under supervision for five years. If the offender complies with all obligations and does not commit another intentional crime during this period, the case is dismissed, leaving the offender without a criminal record for the theft offense.

HAGB differs from suspension in that it results in no criminal record if successfully completed, while suspension still results in a conviction record despite the waived execution of the sentence.

 

Comparative Analysis: Theft vs. Similar Crimes

Theft vs. Robbery

Theft and robbery represent distinct criminal offenses under Turkish law, separated primarily by the use of force or threats. According to Article 148 of the Turkish Criminal Code, robbery involves obtaining movable property through coercion or intimidation, while theft occurs without direct confrontation with the victim.

The legal interests protected by these provisions differ significantly. While theft primarily protects possession and property rights, robbery additionally protects personal freedom and bodily integrity. This dual protection explains why robbery carries substantially higher penalties (6-10 years imprisonment) compared to basic theft (1-3 years).

A key distinction lies in the timing of force application. When force is used before or during the taking of property, the crime constitutes robbery. However, if force is applied only after the property has been taken, for instance to escape with stolen goods, the crime remains theft, potentially with additional charges for the violent act.

Turkish courts have consistently held that psychological intimidation sufficient to overcome a victim’s resistance qualifies as the threat element necessary for robbery. The Supreme Court has established that even implied threats can transform what would otherwise be theft into robbery if they create a reasonable fear in the victim.

Theft vs. Breach of Trust

Theft and breach of trust (embezzlement) are distinguished primarily by the lawful initial possession of the property. In breach of trust cases (Article 155), the offender has legitimate possession of the property through a legal relationship before misappropriating it, while in theft cases, the initial taking itself is unauthorized.

The transfer of possession marks a crucial distinction. As emphasized in Supreme Court Decision No. 2016/315, when an individual temporarily receives an item for examination with no transfer of possession rights (such as when showing interest in purchasing it) and then takes it without payment, this constitutes theft rather than breach of trust.

Both offenses require intent to appropriate the property permanently, but breach of trust involves an abuse of a pre-existing trust relationship between the parties. This betrayal of confidence is what characterizes breach of trust, setting it apart from theft’s more straightforward unauthorized taking.

Notably, breach of trust can apply to both movable and immovable property, whereas theft applies exclusively to movable property. This distinction becomes particularly relevant in cases involving land, buildings, or fixtures that cannot be physically removed.

Theft vs. Property Damage

While theft is motivated by intent to gain benefit from the property, property damage (Article 151) is characterized by an intent to destroy or diminish value. The offender in property damage cases does not seek to appropriate the property for use or gain but rather to cause harm to it.

A critical point of overlap occurs when property is damaged during a theft attempt. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that when damage is caused to the same property that is the target of theft (for example, breaking a lock to steal a bicycle), this is considered a single offense of theft. The damage is treated as a means to accomplish the theft rather than a separate crime.

However, when damage occurs to property other than the theft target (such as breaking a window to enter a building, then stealing items inside), both offenses may be charged. Supreme Court Decision No. 2014/228 clarified that damage to property that is “independent and separate” from the stolen items constitutes a distinct crime.

Property damage is often prosecuted upon complaint from the victim, while theft (except in special circumstances between family members) is prosecuted ex officio. This procedural difference reflects the public interest considerations associated with theft crimes.

Theft vs. Fraud

The primary distinction between theft and fraud lies in the method of obtaining property. While theft involves taking property directly without consent, fraud (Article 157) involves inducing the victim to voluntarily transfer property through deception or trickery.

In fraud cases, the victim’s consent is obtained, albeit through fraudulent means, making the initial transfer appear legitimate. As clarified in Supreme Court Decision No. 2015/9990, when someone tricks another into handing over property by creating false impressions or using fraudulent documents, this constitutes fraud rather than theft.

The mental element also differs significantly. Theft requires intent to take property without consent, while fraud requires a more complex scheme involving deception with intent to gain unlawful benefit. This often makes fraud cases more difficult to prove, requiring evidence of the deceptive acts or statements.

Turkish courts have developed a test focusing on whether the victim willingly participated in the transfer of property. If the victim was an active participant in the transaction (even if deceived), the offense is likely fraud; if the victim had no role in the transfer, it is more likely theft.

Case Law and Judicial Interpretation

Supreme Court Decisions on Theft Crimes

The Turkish Supreme Court has developed substantial jurisprudence refining the application of theft provisions, particularly regarding the completion of the crime. In Decision No. 2021/4851, the Court established that theft is completed when the perpetrator establishes full control over the property and removes it from the victim’s sphere of influence.

Regarding continuous pursuit cases, the Court has consistently ruled that when a thief is caught after uninterrupted pursuit immediately following the taking, the crime remains at the attempt stage. However, if the pursuit is interrupted, allowing the thief to establish control over the property, the crime is considered completed (Decision No. 2017/7757).

The proportionality of punishment has been addressed in numerous decisions, with the Court emphasizing that judges must consider the value of stolen property when determining sentences. Decision No. 2021/20707 reinforced that Article 145 requires judges to reduce penalties when the stolen property has minimal value, though this reduction is discretionary based on the circumstances.

In cases involving theft between family members, the Court has interpreted Article 167 strictly, maintaining that the specified relationships must be proven for immunity or complaint requirements to apply. The Court has rejected attempts to extend these provisions to relationships not explicitly mentioned in the statute.

Interpretations of Qualified Theft Elements

The Supreme Court has provided crucial guidance on what constitutes a “building or its annexes” under Article 142/2-h. In its unified chamber decision (CGK 2016/844, 2017/115), the Court clarified that any structure designed for human occupancy or use qualifies as a building, regardless of its material, permanence, or specific purpose.

Regarding theft in public institutions (Article 142/1-a), the Court has distinguished between property merely located in public buildings and that actually dedicated to public service. In a landmark decision (No. 2014/27949), the Court ruled that items stored in municipal salvage yards but not actively used for public service do not qualify for this aggravating factor.

For theft using special skill (Article 142/2-b), the Court has emphasized that this provision applies primarily to pickpocketing and similar techniques requiring exceptional dexterity. In Decision No. 2017/3185, the Court clarified that this provision applies only to items being worn or carried by the victim, not to property merely in the victim’s vicinity.

The interpretation of “items left in the open due to necessity or custom” (Article 142/1-e) has been refined through multiple decisions. The Court distinguished between items intentionally left in open areas as part of their normal use (agricultural equipment in fields) versus items temporarily left unattended (construction equipment after working hours).

Precedents on Theft Through Information Systems

The concept of “theft through information systems” (Article 142/2-e) has been extensively interpreted by the Supreme Court, particularly in distinguishing it from other cyber crimes. In its landmark decision (CGK 2009/11-193, 2009/268), the Court established that unauthorized transfers of funds through online banking constitute theft rather than fraud or data manipulation.

The Court has clarified that this provision applies when electronic data representing value is transferred without authorization. Decision No. 2014/524 established that mobile phone credits, representing economic value in digital form, are considered movable property that can be subject to theft when transferred without permission through information systems.

A critical element identified by the Court is the absence of system manipulation. When the information system functions normally but is used to transfer assets illegitimately, this constitutes theft. Conversely, when the system itself is compromised or its functioning altered, charges under Article 244 (information systems crimes) may be more appropriate.

The Court has also addressed issues of jurisdiction and evidence in these cases. IP address tracking, authentication records, and transaction logs are considered crucial evidence. The Court has established that prosecutors must thoroughly investigate the technical aspects of such crimes, including identifying the actual location where the unauthorized access occurred (Decision No. 2017/6916).

 

 

About Soylu Law

Soylu Law Firm specializes in criminal defense and litigation with particular expertise in property crimes and theft-related cases in Turkey.

Our team of attorneys provides comprehensive legal services to both Turkish and international clients, offering guidance through Turkey’s complex legal system with a focus on practical solutions.

Based in Istanbul, Soylu Law has developed significant experience working with foreign clients and multinational corporations requiring assistance with Turkish criminal law matters.

We pride ourselves on our client-centered approach and commitment to maintaining clear communication throughout the legal process.

 

For more assistance or consultation on this matter, you can contact us.