1) General Purpose and Structure of Law No. 7571 and Its Place in the Criminal Justice System
The law, publicly referred to as the “11th Judicial Package” and published in the Official Gazette dated December 25, 2025, and numbered 33118, entering into force, has brought extremely comprehensive and radical transformations to our criminal legislation. The primary target adopted by the lawmaker while implementing this legal regulation is fighting against the “perception of impunity” that causes deep discomfort in society. It aims to concretely increase deterrence in crime types that threaten public order and public peace, raise the capacity of judicial authorities to fight new-generation crimes emerging in the field of informatics, and increase functionality by accelerating judicial processes.
This law is not limited solely to the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK); it has made significant amendments to fundamental legislative texts that form different backbones of our legal system, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the Law on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures, the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), the Attorneys’ Law, and the Tax Procedural Law. These changes aim both to reshape crime and punishment policy in terms of substantive criminal law principles and to ensure unity of practice in criminal procedure and execution stages.
1.1) Fighting the Perception of Impunity and the Purpose of the Lawmaker:
In recent years, the increase in the use of firearms, particularly in suburban neighborhoods, intentional endangerment of general safety in traffic and public spaces, the use of children as tools or “shields” within organizational structures, and qualified fraud actions committed through information systems have created a widespread social opinion that the existing sanction regime is insufficient. In files submitted to judicial bodies, perpetrators being detained for short periods and then released, or sentences imposed at the lower limit being deferred/converted into alternative sanctions, reinforced the perception of impunity that ‘the crime remains profitable for the offender’.
The lawmaker, with the aim of shattering this existing negative perception through Law No. 7571, significantly increased the lower and upper limits of criminal sanctions; while aiming to lighten the judicial workload by bringing certain crime types under the scope of prepayment, it narrowed the institutions providing impunity opportunities in crimes that directly violate social safety. In this context, this reform is aimed at re-establishing the retributive and deterrent function of penalties.
1.2) Basic Laws Amended and Their Legal Dimension:
The regulations made within Law No. 7571 concentrate on six main areas in terms of norm hierarchy and legal systematics:
- Crime type and sanction regulations made in TCK Articles 32, 57, 75, 89, 155, 170, 220, and 223,
- The new protective measure introduced under CMK additional Article 128/A regarding asset values and bank/crypto accounts in cybercrimes, and the regulation in CMK Article 280 regarding the reversal authority of regional courts of justice,
- Designation of the Criminal Court of First Instance as the competent court in fraud crimes,
- The restriction of the supervised release relaxation referred to publicly as the “Covid-19 regulation” under Provisional Article 10 of Execution Law No. 5275, and the expansion of excluded crimes,
- The requirement of a proportional fee and security deposit brought for requests to annul tenders in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and
- Disciplinary procedure regulations in the Attorneys’ Law and inflation adjustment exemption regulations in the Tax Procedural Law.
2) Innovations Introduced in Terms of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and Aggravations in Crime Types
The most concrete changes brought by the 11th Judicial Package manifest themselves in critical articles located in the “General Provisions” and “Special Provisions” sections of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. These regulations, created from the perspective of substantive criminal law, aim to re-establish the delicate balance between the procedural guarantees of crime perpetrators and the protection of public order.
2.1) Security Measures Specific to Mentally Ill Persons and Partial Mental Illness Regime (TCK Art. 32 and Art. 57):
The amendments made to Article 32 titled “Mental Illness” and Article 57 titled “Security Measures Specific to Mentally Ill Persons” of the TCK No. 5237 constitute a vital step regarding the rehabilitation of individuals who commit crimes and lack mental health within society and the establishment of public safety. In practice, mentally ill perpetrators being kept in hospitals for insufficient periods, quickly discharged, and reoffending caused serious judicial problems.
With the new legal regulation, a “minimum duration” requirement that mentally ill persons ordered to undergo security measures pursuant to TCK Art. 57 must spend in health institutions has been introduced. Accordingly, in crimes requiring aggravated life imprisonment and life imprisonment, it has been made mandatory for the perpetrator to remain and receive treatment in a high-security health institution for at least 1 year, and in crimes requiring imprisonment with an upper limit of more than 10 years, for at least 6 months. Furthermore, regarding partial mental illness under TCK Art. 32/2, similar tightened examination and medical board report procedures have been adopted during the execution stage of security measures.
2.2) Expansion of the Scope of Prepayment in the Offense of Insult and Its Legal Consequences (TCK Art. 75):
The offense of insult regulated in TCK Art. 125 is at the forefront of crime types that increase the case load of investigative and prosecutorial authorities the most in the Turkish judicial system. With Law No. 7571, the scope of the “Prepayment” regulation in Article 75 of the TCK was expanded to include insult offenses committed face-to-face or in the absence of the person within the prepayment procedure.
According to this regulation; if the suspect or defendant who commits the offense of insult pays the prescribed judicial fine or the determined administrative amount to the treasury, a public lawsuit will not be filed against them, or the lawsuit already filed will be dropped. However, it must be emphasized that in cases where the offense of insult is committed against a public official due to their duty or acquires a qualified form by being committed through public broadcast tools, special legal limitations regarding the protection of the judicial process and the victim’s right to complain will continue to be taken into account.
2.3) Increase in Penalty Amounts for the Offense of Reckless Injury (TCK Art. 89) and Implementation Principles:
A serious increase has been made in the lower and upper limits of penalties for the offense of “Reckless Injury” in Article 89 of the TCK, applied in injuries resulting from traffic accidents, work accidents, and carelessness or negligence in daily life. The lawmaker tightened the sanction for the basic form of the crime, particularly to prevent traffic rule violations and occupational safety negligence from remaining unpunished.
With the regulation made, the lower and upper limits of the prison sentence in the basic form of the offense of reckless injury were raised; in cases where the act causes injury to more than one person or qualified forms occur, such as loss of organ function or bone fracture, it has been facilitated to exclude the sentences to be imposed from the boundaries of deferment and conversion into judicial fines. Thus, it was aimed to make deterrence concrete in reckless actions as well.
2.4) Qualified Form regarding Vehicles in the Offense of Abuse of Trust (TCK Art. 155):
Regarding the offense of Abuse of Trust regulated in TCK Art. 155, actions involving the failure to return or the unlawful transfer of possession of motor land, sea, or air vehicles delivered within the vehicle rental (rent-a-car) sector and commercial relationships created widespread victimization. With Law No. 7571, a new qualified form was added to the provision of TCK Art. 155/2.
Accordingly, in case the offense of abuse of trust is committed regarding motor land, sea, or air vehicles, the sentence to be imposed has been increased, and a heavier prison sentence sanction has been stipulated compared to the basic form of the crime. With this regulation, property and possession security, especially in the automotive and logistics sectors, has been resolved.
2.5) Offense of Intentionally Endangering General Safety (TCK Art. 170) and “Blank Firing” Firearm Regulation:
In social life, firing shots with firearms or “blank firing” weapons discharging sound and gas cartridges in residential areas during organizations such as weddings, engagements, send-offs for soldiers, and celebrations threatened citizens in terms of life and property safety. With the amendment made to TCK Art. 170, the penalty for the offense of intentionally endangering general safety has been increased.
Pursuant to the amendment, the lower limit of imprisonment in the basic penalty of the crime was increased to 1 year and the upper limit to 5 years. In addition, committing the act with “blank firing” weapons discharging sound or gas cartridges was explicitly included within the scope of the article, stipulating imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years. Furthermore, it has been enacted that if the offense is committed in weddings, engagements, sports competitions, or places where the public is gathered, the penalty to be imposed will be “increased by half”.
2.6) Establishing an Organization for the Purpose of Committing a Crime (TCK Art. 220) and Using Children as Instruments in Crime:
Organized crime groups using minor children as hitmen, couriers, or crime instruments to evade criminal liability is one of the most dangerous phenomena encountered by judicial authorities in recent times. The 11th Judicial Package introduced a historic regulation within TCK Art. 220 that toughens the fight against criminal organizations.
With the amendment made, if children are used as instruments in crime within the framework of the criminal organization’s activities, the penalty to be imposed on organization managers will be increased “from one-half to one fold” (TCK Art. 220/5). With this regulation, the lawmaker deployed the heaviest sanctions of criminal law against gang and organization leaders who drag children into crime and use their innocence as a shield.
2.7) Offense of Obstructing, Hijacking, or Detaining the Movement of Transport Vehicles (TCK Art. 223):
Actions against transport vehicles regulated in Article 223 of the TCK were redefined and sanction amounts were updated. Penalties have been aggravated taking public order and navigation safety as the basis in actions involving the unlawful obstruction of movement, hijacking, or detention of land, sea, railway, or air transport vehicles.
3) Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) and Changes in Courts of Jurisdiction
Procedural provisions, which are complementary to changes in criminal legislation, were brought to a new dimension with the arrangements made in the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271. Particularly, it was aimed to enhance the effectiveness of judicial processes and combat cybercrimes brought by the digital age.
3.1) Suspension of Accounts and Seizure Protection Measure in Cybercrimes (CMK Art. 128/A):
Nowadays, in fraud, illegal betting, and cybercrimes committed over the internet and mobile banking systems, transferring proceeds of crime to relevant accounts and crypto assets within seconds and losing their trace constituted the biggest obstacle. With Law No. 7571, Article “128/A” was added to the CMK, providing a new protection measure that operates extremely fast.
Pursuant to CMK Art. 128/A; in cybercrimes or crimes committed through the use of information systems as tools, accounts at banks, payment institutions, or crypto asset service providers where there is strong suspicion that they were obtained from crime can be immediately “suspended” for up to 48 hours upon the instruction of the public prosecutor. With this measure submitted to the approval of the magistrate judge of peace within the following 24 hours, the disposal of crime proceeds and the deepening of victimization will be prevented right at the beginning of the investigation.
3.2) Determination of the Criminal Court of First Instance as the Competent Court in Fraud Crimes:
In previous legislative practice, simple fraud within the scope of TCK Art. 157 fell under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of First Instance, whereas “Qualified Fraud” committed through the use of information systems, bank or credit institutions as tools under TCK Art. 158 fell under the jurisdiction of the High Criminal Court. This situation extraordinarily increased the workload of High Criminal Courts.
As a result of the jurisdictional regulation made with the 11th Judicial Package, trials for fraud crimes were unified, removed from the scope of jurisdiction of High Criminal Courts, and “Criminal Courts of First Instance” were made competent. Thus, High Criminal Courts will be able to focus on heavier crime types such as terrorism, intentional homicide, and organizations; while fraud trials can be concluded more swiftly in Criminal Courts of First Instance.
3.3) Limits of the Reversal Authority of Regional Courts of Justice (BAM) and Procedural Changes (CMK Art. 280):
The limits of the reversal authority of the Criminal Chambers of the Regional Courts of Justice (BAM) reviewing appeal examinations against local court decisions were clarified through the amendment made to CMK Art. 280. By preventing BAMs from returning files to local courts on insufficient grounds without entering into the merits of the case, appeal chambers have been encouraged to hold hearings themselves and decide on the merits.
4) Changes in Execution Law and Implementation of Provisional Article 10 of Law No. 5275 (COVID-19 Regulation)
One of the most discussed sections of the 11th Judicial Package in the public and legal circles consists of the amendments made to Provisional Article 10 of the Law on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures No. 5275. The lawmaker made significant revisions to this article, which is publicly called the “Covid-19 Execution Regulation” or disguised execution relaxation.
4.1) Expansion of Provisional Article 10 and Relaxation of Supervised Release Periods:
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Provisional Article 10 of Law No. 5275, certain convicts who were in penal execution institutions or acquired the right to be transferred to open prisons as of July 31, 2023, were granted the opportunity to transition to supervised release 3 years or 5 years early. In line with the amendment made to Provisional Article 10 by Article 27 of Law No. 7571, the boundaries and periods of implementation were redetermined for convicts whose sentences became final or whose new court decrees arrived after the said date.
4.2) Expansion of the Scope of Excluded Crimes and Criticisms Regarding the Principle of Equality (Art. 10) of the Constitution:
In the new version of the provision of Execution Law Provisional Art. 10/6, the scope of excluded/exceptional crimes that “cannot benefit” from the early supervised release opportunity was significantly expanded. With the new regulation; “Intentional Homicide” crimes committed against descendants, ancestors, spouse, sibling, divorced spouse, woman, child, or persons unable to defend themselves physically or mentally (TCK Art. 82/1-d, e, f) were definitively excluded from the scope.
However, in opinions expressed in doctrine and by non-governmental organizations; other paragraphs of TCK Art. 82/1, such as “premeditated murder” or murder with “monstrous feeling”, or deaths occurring due to earthquake/disaster negligence not being included in the excluded scope and allowed to benefit from supervised release similar to a disguised amnesty, were criticized in terms of the principle of “Equality Before the Law” in Article 10 of the Constitution. It was stated that differences arising among convicts according to the finalization dates of their files damaged the sense of justice.
4.3) Convict Rights, Evaluation of Good Conduct, and Legal Issues That May Be Encountered in Practice:
Pursuant to the new repealed or amended sub-paragraphs of Provisional Article 10; stricter concrete reasoning requirements will be sought in evaluations to be made by execution judgeships and prison administration and observation boards regarding whether convicts are of ‘good conduct’. Furthermore, imbalances between the crime date and the decree’s finalization date in time-served calculations will need to be resolved through complaints to be made to the execution judgeship.
5) Enforcement and Bankruptcy, Attorney Disciplinary Law, and Economic Regulations
Law No. 7571 contains administrative and economic procedural rules that directly concern not only the criminal justice system but also private law and commercial life.
5.1) Requests for Annulment of Tender in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, Proportional Fee and Security Deposit Obligation:
With the amendment made to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), it was aimed to prevent persons who want to prolong the tender process and request the annulment of the tender in bad faith in forced execution sales. The obligation of interested parties requesting the annulment of the tender to deposit proportional fees and security deposits at certain rates was tied to strict rules.
Pursuant to the law, if the prescribed proportional fee and security deposit are not deposited when making a request for annulment of tender, the request for annulment will be rejected “definitely without entering into the merits” by examining the file over the record by execution civil courts. This situation will accelerate finalization processes in execution tenders.
5.2) Innovations in Disciplinary Provisions of Attorneys’ Law No. 1136:
Legal arrangements were made in the disciplinary provisions of Attorneys’ Law No. 1136 in line with the cancellation decisions of the Constitutional Court. Types of disciplinary penalties to be imposed on attorneys, statute of limitations periods, and trial procedures of bar disciplinary boards were clarified in accordance with the principle of legality.
5.3) Provisional Article of Tax Procedural Law and Inflation Adjustment Exemption:
To protect economic stability and eliminate uncertainties in taxpayers’ financial statements, a provisional article was added to Tax Procedural Law No. 213. With this regulation, it was decided that financial statements of certain taxpayer groups for the 2025, 2026, and 2027 accounting periods will not be subjected to inflation adjustment, thereby preventing disputes between the financial administration and taxpayers.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1-) What is the “temporary freeze/seizure” protective measure applied to bank accounts in cybercrimes and fraud?
A1-) In fraud crimes committed through information systems or the abuse of bank/credit cards, the authority to intervene immediately in suspect accounts was introduced to prevent the victim’s loss from increasing. Upon the instruction of the public prosecutor or the decision of the judgeship, the authority to temporarily block and suspend bank accounts and money transfers suspected of being obtained from crime has been included in the procedure.
Q2-) Is there a new regulation regarding “active repentance” as a cause for personal non-punishment or sentence reduction?
A2-) Active repentance provisions to be applied in certain crimes committed against property and fraud types, in case the victim’s damage is remedied during the investigation stage, have been clarified. In case the damage is fully compensated before the investigation ends, sentence reduction rates to be made were increased, encouraging the fastest remedy of the victim’s material damage rather than punishing the defendant.
Q3-) What innovations are envisaged in the procedure for appointing a trustee within the scope of organized crimes or laundering proceeds of crime?
A3-) Authorities and time limits regarding the appointment of the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF) as a trustee to companies suspected of laundering money or commercial activities carried out within organizations established for the purpose of committing a crime have been re-regulated. To prevent companies from losing economic value and to manage them like a prudent merchant during the investigation process, the legal liability and sale/liquidation procedures of TMSF in its duty as trustee were tied to concrete rules.
Q4-) How have the daily amounts of judicial fines and the procedure for converting them into imprisonment in case of non-payment been affected?
A4-) Taking economic conditions and purchasing power of money into account, the lower and upper daily amounts of judicial fines were increased. In case of non-payment of the imposed judicial fine, to prevent persons from directly entering prison due to nominal amounts and to effectively collect public claims; notification of payment orders, installment periods, and thresholds for conversion into imprisonment were re-adapted.
Q5-) Has there been a change in the scope and operation of the “conciliation” mechanism at the investigation stage?
A5-) To reduce the workload of the judiciary and strengthen alternative dispute resolution methods, the scope of crimes within conciliation was reviewed. While some minor offenses subject to complaint were included in conciliation, the timeframes for the conciliator to submit proposals to parties and the performance tracking of conciliation obligations (material/moral compensation, work for public benefit, etc.) were tied to stricter conditions and clear time limits.