In crypto-asset markets in Turkey, users may sometimes find themselves included in fraud investigations even though they were merely one party to a purchase or sale transaction. This is particularly seen in transactions carried out through P2P (peer-to-peer) systems, where disputes may arise regarding the source of the transferred funds or the buyer’s subsequent use of the crypto-assets. In such cases, the person who sold the crypto-assets may also become the subject of a criminal investigation in Turkey.

However, merely being a party to a P2P transaction does not automatically mean that the person is the perpetrator of the offence of fraud under Turkish criminal law. For criminal liability to arise, the specific facts of the case must be examined in their entirety. In particular, the nature of the transaction, the scope of the communication between the parties, the person’s knowledge, intent, and ability to control the events must all be carefully assessed.

How does the P2P system work?

A P2P system is a model that allows users to buy and sell crypto-assets directly with one another through the technical infrastructure provided by a digital platform. In this system, the platform is generally not itself the buyer or seller; rather, it merely enables the parties to meet and complete the transaction through technical security mechanisms.

In a typical transaction in Turkey, the buyer transfers Turkish lira to the bank account designated by the seller. Once the seller confirms that the payment has been received, the seller releases the crypto-assets that were being held within the system. In this way, the crypto-assets pass into the control of the buyer and the transaction is completed.

Within this structure, the seller can usually verify only that the payment has arrived in his or her own bank account. By contrast, the seller may not always be able to know the relationship between the sender and third parties, the prior source of the funds, or the wallets to which the crypto-assets will later be transferred.

Does every money transfer create criminal suspicion against the seller?

In some investigations in Turkey, it is alleged that money obtained from a victim through various deceptive methods was subsequently used to purchase crypto-assets in a P2P transaction. In that case, the person selling the crypto-assets may also be included in the investigation. The real legal issue, however, is whether the seller knew about this unlawful chain of events and whether he or she consciously took part in it.

Under Turkish criminal law, liability is not based solely on the fact that a harmful result occurred. It depends on the perpetrator’s conduct, knowledge, and intent. If a person simply carried out an ordinary sale transaction through the platform, did not know the counterparty, had no contact or coordination outside the platform, and there is no concrete evidence showing joint action, it may not be appropriate to automatically treat that person as if he or she were a fraud offender merely because money was received in a bank account and crypto-assets were released through the system in return.

Why is proof of intent and deceptive conduct important?

One of the essential elements in the offence of fraud is that the suspect must have engaged in deceptive conduct aimed at misleading the victim and thereby obtained a benefit. If the P2P seller did not directly communicate with the victim outside the ordinary platform transaction, did not direct or manipulate the victim, did not make false promises, and did not participate in the fraudulent scheme, then the existence of the mental element of the offence must be separately and carefully examined.

The following factors are particularly important in building a defence in Turkey:

• The transaction was conducted through the platform;
• The parties knew each other only at the level of usernames;
• There was no contact outside the platform;
• The messages were limited to payment confirmation and IBAN sharing;
• The seller released the crypto-assets only after seeing that the payment had reached the account, in accordance with the ordinary functioning of the system;
• The seller had no power of control or disposition over how the crypto-assets would be used after the transaction.

Such circumstances may indicate not that the person was connected to a criminal organisation or acted with fraudulent intent, but rather that he or she was simply an ordinary user trading in a digital marketplace.

What is the scope of the P2P seller’s control?

One of the key features of the P2P system is that, once the transaction is completed, the crypto-assets come under the buyer’s control. After that stage, the seller generally cannot track to which wallet the assets are sent, whether they are transferred to other persons, or for what purpose they are used. Likewise, the seller may not be able in every case to know from whom, and for what reason, the funds deposited into the bank account were previously collected.

For this reason, in Turkish criminal investigations, merely appearing as one visible link in a chain of transactions is not the same thing as being part of the crime itself. In order to establish the material truth in criminal proceedings, transaction records, platform messages, bank movements, user history, and allegations of connection between the parties must all be evaluated together.

Which evidence is important for the defence?

In such cases, the most important element of the defence is to demonstrate, through technical and documentary evidence, that the transaction was an ordinary crypto-asset purchase and sale. The following documents may be particularly decisive:

• Screenshots of the P2P transaction;
• Bank transfer records;
• In-platform messaging records;
• User account history;
• Transaction times and exchange rate information;
• Records of similar previous transactions that were completed without any issue.

Through these documents, it may be argued that the suspect was not in fact a perpetrator acting in contact with the victim, but merely a user acting within the rules of the platform.

Conclusion

As P2P transactions become more common in crypto-asset markets in Turkey, the risk also increases that innocent users may become involved in criminal investigations because of unlawful acts committed by third parties. However, criminal liability cannot be based merely on being the apparent party to a transfer. It must rest on knowledge, intent, will, and concrete connection to the alleged offence.

Therefore, when a person is accused of fraud in relation to Binance P2P or similar systems in Turkey, both the technical operation of the transaction and the fundamental principles of Turkish criminal law must be considered together. It must be carefully determined whether that person was truly part of a deceptive scheme. Otherwise, individuals may be unfairly exposed to criminal prosecution in Turkey simply because they carried out an ordinary sale transaction through a digital platform.