1. Legal Framework and the Material and Mental Elements of the Offences
Prior to the entry into force of Law No. 6222 on the Prevention of Violence and Disorder in Sports, match-fixing and incentive payments were not defined as separate criminal offences under Turkish criminal legislation. Indeed, in its judgment dated 12 April 2023 (Case No. 2023/1057, Decision No. 2023/1134) and its judgment dated 13 February 2025 (Case No. 2024/1536, Decision No. 2025/815), which referred to the former judgment, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation established that the acquittal judgments rendered by the Istanbul 20th High Criminal Court were based not on the non-occurrence of the material facts, but on the principle of legality, on the grounds that “the acts of match-fixing and incentive payments had not been regulated as criminal offences until Law No. 6222 entered into force” and that “the acquittal was not based on the non-constitution of the offences of match-fixing and incentive payments in the specific case, but on the fact that the statutory provisions establishing match-fixing as a criminal offence were not in force on the date of the acts.” The same point was also reflected in the Court of Cassation’s assessment cited in the Constitutional Court’s judgment dated 23 July 2014 (Application No. 2014/1572). In its general framework, Law No. 6222 specifically regulates “match-fixing, incentive payments, and other prohibited acts and conduct, together with the sanctions applicable thereto” (19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 9 July 2019, Case No. 2019/30373, Decision No. 2019/10743).
A. The Offence of Match-Fixing (Article 11(1) of Law No. 6222)
As stated in the judgment of the 19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 16 January 2017 (Case No. 2016/629, Decision No. 2017/248) and in the Constitutional Court’s decisions (Application Nos. 2014/1572 and 2014/1957), the offence of match-fixing is committed by “providing another person with a financial gain or other benefit for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a specific sporting competition.” According to the current wording of Article 11(1) of Law No. 6222:
“(1) Any person who provides another person with a financial gain or other benefit for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a specific sporting competition shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one to three years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days. The person receiving the benefit shall also be punished as a co-perpetrator of this offence. Even where an agreement has been reached concerning the provision of a financial gain or other benefit, the penalty shall be imposed as if the offence had been completed.”
Under this provision, the offence is completed when a financial gain or other benefit is provided, or an agreement is reached in this regard, for the purpose of securing a predetermined outcome. The 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516) held that the match must not necessarily conclude in the agreed manner for the material elements of the offence to be complete. It ruled that “the offence of match-fixing is completed at the moment the match-fixing agreement is concluded” and consequently concluded that “whether the match-fixing or incentive-payment agreement has been reflected on the field is of no importance.”
B. The Offence of Providing Incentive Payments (Article 11(5) of Law No. 6222)
The 19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (16 January 2017, Case No. 2016/629, Decision No. 2017/248) defined an incentive payment as “the provision or promise of a financial gain or other benefit for the purpose of ensuring that a team performs successfully in a competition.” According to the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516), “the offence of providing an incentive payment is likewise completed at the moment the payment is made or a promise to make it is given.” It has been accepted that whether the agreement is reflected on the field is irrelevant to the constitution of the offence.
According to the current wording of Article 11(5) of Law No. 6222:
“(5) Where the offence is committed by providing or promising an incentive payment for the purpose of ensuring that a team performs successfully in a competition, the penalty to be imposed under the provisions of this Article shall be reduced by one-half.”
Nevertheless, the legislature has excluded certain incentive payments from the scope of criminal punishment under the current wording of Article 11(6):
“(6) The provisions of this Article shall not apply where a payment or promise of a payment is made:
(a) To national teams or national athletes for the purpose of ensuring their successful performance;
(b) By sports clubs to their own team players or technical staff for the purpose of ensuring their successful performance in a competition.”
C. Betting-Related Match-Fixing and Relevant Legislation
Committing the offence of match-fixing for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of betting games is regulated as an aggravated form of the offence under Article 11(4)(ç) of Law No. 6222, requiring the penalty to be increased by one-half (19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 16 January 2017, Case No. 2016/629, Decision No. 2017/248).
Furthermore, acts falling within the scope of Law No. 7258 on the Regulation of Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sporting Competitions constitute independent criminal offences. In its judgment dated 4 February 2025 (Case No. 2023/20519, Decision No. 2025/1948), the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that the offences under Articles 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of Law No. 7258 have independent elements and that “the acts constituting each offence are separate from one another.” Accordingly, the rules on ideal concurrence of offences cannot be applied.
In its judgment dated 13 May 2026 (Case No. 2025/1062, Decision No. 2026/5819), the same Chamber upheld a conviction under Article 5(1)(ç) of Law No. 7258 in a case involving conduct aimed at ensuring the outcomes of matches on which bets were to be placed. The relevant provision states:
“Persons who encourage others, by means of advertising or otherwise, to participate in fixed-odds or mutual betting or games of chance based on sporting competitions shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one to three years and a judicial fine of up to three thousand days.”
In disputes concerning the distribution of betting winnings, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (9 November 2020, Case No. 2020/7022, Decision No. 2020/6183) considered a provision in the rules of the game stating that, “where it is determined that there is reasonable suspicion that the outcome of a competition was manipulated and that the rules and official regulations governing such competitions were consequently violated, … the Organisation may postpone or cancel the distribution of winnings.” Nevertheless, the Chamber overturned the first-instance court’s judgment on the grounds that “a decision had been rendered by applying a regulation adopted at a later date to an event that occurred in the past, whereas the provisions of the legislation in force on the date of the act should have been applied.”
2. Provisions on Attempt, Participation, and Concurrence of Offences
A. Attempt
Under Article 11(1) of Law No. 6222, the offence is deemed completed even where the parties have reached an agreement concerning the provision of a financial gain or other benefit. Failure to reach an agreement is expressly regulated as an attempt under the current wording of Article 11(3):
“(3) Where a financial gain or other benefit is promised or offered but no agreement is reached, a penalty shall nevertheless be imposed on the ground that the offence remained at the stage of attempt.”
The 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516) and the 19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (16 January 2017, Case No. 2016/629, Decision No. 2017/248) have accepted that the conduct remains at the stage of attempt where an offer has been communicated but its acceptance by the other party cannot be proven, or where no agreement has been reached.
B. Participation
Under the current wording of Article 11(1) of Law No. 6222, in addition to the perpetrator who provides the benefit, the recipient of the financial gain or other benefit is also considered a co-perpetrator. Furthermore, the current wording of Article 11(2) provides:
“(2) Persons who, with knowledge of the existence of a match-fixing agreement, contribute to the sporting competition concluding in accordance with that agreement shall also be punished pursuant to paragraph (1).”
The 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516) stated that the leader of an organisation established for the purpose of committing crimes may also be held separately liable for match-fixing offences committed within the framework of the organisation’s activities. Persons who facilitate the commission of the offence may, in turn, be assessed as accessories.
C. Concurrence of Offences
Where match-fixing and incentive-payment offences are committed repeatedly as part of a continuing course of criminal conduct, the current wording of Article 11(10) of Law No. 6222 applies:
“(10) Where the offences defined in this Article are committed more than once, at different times, in execution of a single decision to commit an offence, a single penalty shall be imposed on the basis of the act carrying the heaviest penalty, and that penalty shall be increased by one-quarter to three-quarters.”
As reflected in the Constitutional Court’s decisions (Application Nos. 2014/1572 and 2014/1957), where multiple acts are committed at different times pursuant to a single decision to commit an offence, a single penalty is imposed on the perpetrator, and that penalty is increased accordingly. The 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516) likewise stated that the provisions governing continuing offences shall apply where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
3. Sanctions, Enforcement Regime, and Measures Applicable to Legal Entities
A. Basic Penalties and Aggravating Circumstances
Under Article 11(1) of Law No. 6222, the basic penalty is “imprisonment for a term of one to three years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days.”
Under the current wording of Article 11(4) of the Law, the penalty shall be increased by one-half where the offence is committed:
- By abusing the trust or influence arising from the exercise of public office;
- By the presidents or members of the general assemblies or boards of directors of federations, sports clubs, or legal entities operating in the field of sports, or by technical or administrative managers, agents, or representatives;
- Within the framework of the activities of an organisation established for the purpose of committing crimes;
- For the purpose of influencing the outcomes of betting games.
Where an incentive payment is provided or promised, the penalty shall instead be reduced by one-half pursuant to Article 11(5).
B. Enforcement and Security Measures
According to the current wording of Article 11(9) of Law No. 6222:
“(9) In relation to offences falling within the scope of this Article, a decision deferring the announcement of the judgment may not be issued pursuant to Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 dated 4 December 2004; any prison sentence imposed may not be converted into alternative sanctions or suspended.”
Furthermore, under the current wording of Article 11(11), where a conviction is entered, a prohibition on serving in the management and supervisory bodies of sports clubs, federations, and legal entities in which sporting activities are conducted shall be imposed on the person pursuant to Article 53 of the Turkish Criminal Code (Constitutional Court, Application Nos. 2014/1572 and 2014/1957).
Compliance with the limits of authority in the enforcement of criminal sanctions is mandatory. In its judgment dated 9 April 2018 (Case No. 2018/633, Decision No. 2018/4165), the 19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that ordering the direct conversion of an unpaid judicial fine into imprisonment constituted an impermissible restriction of enforcement authority. The judgment was therefore upheld with an amendment.
C. Effective Remorse
Pursuant to the current wording of Article 11(8) of Law No. 6222:
“(8) No penalty shall be imposed on a person who ensures that the offence is discovered before the competition takes place.”
D. Administrative Fines Applicable to Sports Clubs and Legal Entities
The current wording of Article 11(7) of Law No. 6222 provides for administrative sanctions against legal entities:
“(7) Where the offence is committed for the benefit of sports clubs or any other legal entity, an administrative fine equal to the amount of the match-fixing payment or incentive payment shall also be imposed on such entities. However, the administrative fine imposed may not be less than one hundred thousand Turkish liras.”
The 19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (16 January 2017, Case No. 2016/629, Decision No. 2017/248) held that the offence must be established before this sanction may be imposed. It stated that “imposing an administrative sanction solely on the assumption that the offence has been committed, before the commission of the aforementioned offences has been established, would violate the presumption of innocence.”
In its judgment dated 5 November 2015 (Case No. 2015/33, Decision No. 2015/6742), the same Chamber also stated that “an administrative fine may be imposed under Article 11(7) of Law No. 6222 only where there is a final conviction for the offence of match-fixing or providing incentive payments.”
In a dispute concerning an administrative fine, the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (26 June 2014, Case No. 2014/10097, Decision No. 2014/13871) ordered the case file to be referred to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation due to deficiencies concerning service of process and the petition.
4. Standards of Evidence and the Issue of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence
In criminal proceedings, evidence must have been obtained through lawful methods for the court to form its judicial conviction. In its judgment dated 9 April 2018 (Case No. 2018/633, Decision No. 2018/4165), the 19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation emphasised that all evidence must be fully presented at trial before a conviction may be entered. It required that:
“It must be established, as a result of a trial conducted in accordance with the law, that the accused committed the alleged offence; the evidence in its entirety and the allegations and defences advanced at each stage must be presented fully and in a manner permitting appellate review; such evidence must be examined without altering its substance; and the judicial conviction must be based on definite, consistent, and non-contradictory evidence.”
A. Interception of Communications and Technical Surveillance
The judgments of the Court of Cassation establish two principal thresholds regarding evidence obtained through the interception of communications and technical surveillance:
1. Inadmissibility of Interceptions Falling Outside the Scope of Organised Crime
The 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (20 December 2021, Case No. 2021/5113, Decision No. 2021/6916) expressly held that interception and surveillance measures authorised on suspicion of establishing an organisation for the purpose of committing crimes could not, in the absence of a remaining conviction for the organised-crime offence, be relied upon independently to prove match-fixing. The Chamber stated that there was:
“no legal possibility of using [such evidence] to prove the offences of match-fixing and incentive payments, which are not included among the catalogue offences.”
The Chamber concluded that such evidence had become unlawful and stated that an acquittal should be entered “by excluding this unlawfully obtained evidence and assessing the remaining evidence.”
2. Examination of Evidence Obtained Pursuant to Lawful Decisions
In the reasoning of the Court of Cassation cited in the Constitutional Court’s judgment dated 23 July 2014 (Application No. 2014/1957), it was stated that, where records of intercepted communications and physical surveillance had been obtained lawfully and examined at trial, “the recorded telephone conversations (TAPE recordings) and physical surveillance reports had been obtained in accordance with procedural requirements and the law.”
This finding represents the assessment of the Court of Cassation quoted in the Constitutional Court’s decision; it should not be understood as a substantive determination independently made by the Constitutional Court.
B. Evidentiary Value of Confessions
The evidentiary value of confessions varies depending on the circumstances of the specific case and the procedure through which the evidence was obtained.
- In relation to statements duly recorded in accordance with the law, the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516) held that “depending on the circumstances of the specific case, audio recordings containing an explicit confession of the offence may, provided that they have been obtained lawfully, be accepted as a sufficient basis for conviction even if they are not corroborated by other evidence.”
- Conversely, in its judgment dated 20 December 2021 (Case No. 2021/5113, Decision No. 2021/6916), the same Chamber adopted strict standards for reviewing convictions based on confessions. It emphasised that the following matters must be taken into account: “the stage at which the confession was made and whether it was based on free will; whether the person making the confession understood the seriousness of the statement and the consequences arising from it; and whether the confession was corroborated by other evidence or indicia.”
Where the evidence was insufficient, the Chamber upheld acquittal judgments on the ground that there was “insufficient evidence to punish the accused for the alleged offences” (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516).
5. The Distinction Between Criminal Law, Sports Disciplinary Law, and Other Areas of Law
A. The Independence of Criminal Law and Disciplinary Law
While the jurisdiction of sports disciplinary boards is limited to violations of sporting ethics and competition regulations, criminal courts are bound by the principle of legality and the evidentiary standards applicable in criminal proceedings.
The Binding Effect of Reports
The 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (17 January 2014, Case No. 2013/16791, Decision No. 2014/516) stated that reports issued by bodies operating within sports federations are not binding on criminal courts. The Chamber expressly found that “the aforementioned reports have no binding effect.”
Acts Established in Disciplinary Proceedings
In judgments cited by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (13 February 2025, Case No. 2024/1536, Decision No. 2025/815; 12 April 2023, Case No. 2023/1057, Decision No. 2023/1134), it was stated that the Professional Football Disciplinary Board had found that, in certain matches, “attempts to influence the match result had been made and the intended result had been achieved,” and that one perpetrator had been sanctioned with a 42-year ban from football-related activities. This decision was upheld by the Arbitration Board.
The reasoning of the first-instance court, as reproduced in the judgment of the 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 26 October 2017 (Case No. 2015/22235, Decision No. 2017/10282), likewise recorded that “the Disciplinary Board and Arbitration Board of the Turkish Football Federation had also established attempts to interfere with the results of the matches in question and that the match results had in fact been affected.”
Freedom of Expression and Allegations Under Disciplinary Regulations
In its decision dated 30 April 2021 (Decision No. 2021/[1……]K.), the Arbitration Board of the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) examined statements made to the press by a club president, including: “The dirty conduct of our opponents. I said it openly, but I did not name anyone. I said, ‘Our opponents are being given incentive payments.’”
The Board held that the statements concerned the disciplinary regulations rather than the constituent elements of a criminal offence. It concluded that the statements were not of a nature “that encourages violence or disorder in sports, could lead to supporter misconduct, calls into question the integrity or impartiality of match officials, seeks to discredit them, or could offend them.” As the potential for concrete harm had not been demonstrated, the disciplinary sanction was lifted.
B. The Effect of a Criminal Acquittal on Civil Proceedings
The nature of an acquittal judgment rendered by a criminal court directly affects its binding effect in civil proceedings.
The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (12 April 2023, Case No. 2023/1057, Decision No. 2023/1134) held that an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically bind the civil court; however, established material facts determined by a final criminal judgment cannot be reconsidered in civil proceedings.
The Chamber noted that the acquittal in the case had been based on the fact that the conduct did not constitute a criminal offence, rather than on the non-existence of the underlying material facts. On the basis of the findings of the Professional Football Disciplinary Board and the Arbitration Board, it concluded that the civil action should be dismissed. The Chamber ruled as follows:
“The defendant’s application for rectification of the judgment is accepted; the judgment of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 14 December 2022, Case No. 2022/7747, Decision No. 2022/9534, is set aside; and the judgment is REVERSED for the reasons stated above.”
A subsequent dismissal judgment rendered by a Civil Court of First Instance on the same grounds was upheld by the judgment dated 13 February 2025 (Case No. 2024/1536, Decision No. 2025/815).
The 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its judgment dated 26 October 2017 (Case No. 2015/22235, Decision No. 2017/10282), held that, where criminal proceedings remained pending, dismissing the civil action directly without first assessing whether the criminal proceedings should be treated as a preliminary issue constituted grounds for reversal. The Chamber stated that:
“Instead, the court should have assessed, in light of the expert report, whether the criminal case file should be treated as a preliminary issue and rendered its decision in accordance with the outcome of that assessment.”
C. Match-Fixing Allegations from the Perspective of Competition Law
The majority of the Competition Board characterised match-fixing agreements as sporting acts directed at the outcome of a competition rather than as economic competition between undertakings (27 October 2011, Decision No. 11-54/1385-495).
The Board stated that the relationship between sporting success and economic outcomes was “not a direct relationship, but an indirect one,” and that “attributing certain economic consequences to a sporting event is not sufficient, in itself, to characterise that event as an economic activity.” Accordingly, the Board concluded that the conduct did not fall within the scope of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition.
In a dissenting opinion, it was argued that such conduct “would affect the chances of success and, consequently, the winnings of consumers placing bets on the match or matches concerned.”
In its subsequent decision dated 7 August 2014 (Decision No. 14-26/530-235), the Board reaffirmed its previous approach, stating that “the Board has likewise characterised match-fixing acts intended to influence the outcomes of sporting competitions not as economic activities, but as violations of sporting ethics and morality.”
However, in the specific case under examination, the Board stated that “none of the elements examined during the investigation concerned sporting ethics” and imposed an administrative fine on the Turkish Underwater Sports Federation (TSSF) pursuant to Article 6 of Law No. 4054.