Revocation of Turkish Citizenship Through Real Estate Investment

Some foreign nationals who acquired Turkish citizenship through the purchase of real estate may later face administrative or criminal investigations on allegations that the declared property value was inaccurate, the payment structure was fictitious, the funds used in the transaction were not genuine, or documents submitted during the citizenship process did not reflect the actual transaction.

In recent investigations, authorities have examined allegations involving artificially inflated property valuations, circular money transfers, fictitious financing structures and irregular documentation used in citizenship applications. However, the fact that a developer, real estate agency, valuation company or intermediary is suspected of wrongdoing does not automatically mean that every foreign investor who purchased property through that company acted unlawfully. This distinction is particularly important for investors who genuinely paid the required investment amount but relied on developers, agencies or intermediaries to structure the transaction. Each investor's case must therefore be examined individually.

1. Revocation and Withdrawal of a Citizenship Decision Are Not the Same

The first question in any such case is the legal basis on which the citizenship decision has been challenged or terminated.

Under Article 31 of Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901, a decision granting Turkish citizenship may be annulled where citizenship was acquired as a result of a false statement made by the applicant, or concealment of material facts affecting the acquisition of citizenship.

This means that the existence of an irregularity in the transaction alone may not be sufficient under Article 31. The law specifically refers to false statements or concealment attributable to the person who acquired citizenship.

For example, if a valuation company deliberately overvalued a property without the foreign investor's knowledge or involvement, this is not automatically the same as the investor personally submitting false information. Likewise, if a developer declared a lower sale price for tax purposes or an intermediary used a financial arrangement that was not properly explained to the investor, the investor's legal position may differ significantly from that of a person who knowingly participated in a fictitious citizenship transaction.

Article 40 of Law No. 5901 also regulates the withdrawal of citizenship decisions. If it is later established that the legal conditions required for citizenship were not actually satisfied at the time citizenship was granted, the original decision may be withdrawn.

This distinction is important. Under Article 31, the focus is generally on the applicant's false statement or concealment of material facts. Under Article 40, the focus is on whether the legal requirements for acquiring citizenship were actually satisfied in the first place. Therefore, the wording, reasoning and legal basis of the administrative decision must be carefully reviewed.

2. Can the Misconduct of a Developer or Agency Automatically Be Attributed to the Investor?

Not necessarily.

The foreign investor, the property developer, the real estate agency, the valuation company and other intermediaries are legally distinct persons or entities. The fact that irregularities have been discovered in a large number of transactions carried out by a particular company does not, by itself, establish that every foreign buyer knowingly participated in those irregularities.

The following questions are particularly important:

• How much did the investor actually pay?
• To whom was the money paid?
• Was any part of the purchase price later refunded?
• Did the investor participate in or influence the preparation of the valuation report?
• Did the investor know that the amount declared at the land registry was inaccurate?
• Did the investor make any false statement during the citizenship application?
• Was the investor aware of any circular or fictitious money transfer?

These questions must be assessed separately for each individual applicant. In Turkish administrative law, the withdrawal or annulment of a citizenship decision should be based on specific and concrete facts concerning the individual case, rather than assumptions based solely on the conduct of third parties.

3. What If the Investor Actually Paid the Required Amount?

This is one of the most important issues in practice.

Some foreign investors may genuinely have paid the total amount required for citizenship but may have paid part of the price in cash to a developer or intermediary. For example, an investor may have paid the equivalent of USD 250,000 or USD 400,000 in total, while only part of that amount was transferred through the banking system or reflected in the official title deed.

Two separate issues must then be distinguished. The first is the actual economic payment made by the investor. The second is whether the formal legal requirements of the citizenship regulations were satisfied. These issues are related, but they are not identical.

Evidence of a genuine cash payment may be extremely important in showing that the investor actually paid the required economic amount, did not receive a hidden refund, and did not participate in a fictitious money circulation scheme. However, the existence of a genuine cash payment does not necessarily mean that all formal requirements concerning bank transfers, official deeds or documentary proof were satisfied. Accordingly, the rules in force on the date of the investment must always be examined.

4. Cash Payments Must Be Evaluated Together With the Rules Applicable on the Transaction Date

The citizenship-by-investment rules in Türkiye have changed several times. For that reason, the current rules should not automatically be applied to transactions completed years earlier.

The required minimum investment amount also changed over time. Between 12 January 2017 and 18 September 2018, the minimum real estate investment amount was USD 1,000,000. From 18 September 2018, the threshold was reduced to USD 250,000. From 13 June 2022, the minimum amount was increased to USD 400,000. Certain transitional rules were also introduced for transactions initiated before the change.

Therefore, every case should be reviewed based on the date of the property purchase, the date of the title deed transaction, the date of the non-sale undertaking, the date of the eligibility certificate, the date of the citizenship application, and the rules applicable on each of those dates.

5. How Can a Cash Payment Be Proven?

In cases involving cash payments, it is usually not sufficient simply to state that the money was handed over in cash. The payment should, as far as possible, be reconstructed through documentary evidence.

Relevant evidence may include:

• bank records showing cash withdrawals;
• receipts issued by the developer or intermediary;
• sale agreements and additional protocols;
• WhatsApp messages and emails;
• invoices and accounting records;
• written acknowledgments of payment;
• foreign exchange records;
• title deed documents and powers of attorney; and
• financial records obtained during a criminal investigation.

The timing of the payment is also important. If large cash withdrawals can be directly linked to the date of the property transaction or to written communications with the seller, they may become significant evidence.

6. What If the Authorities Claim That Part of the Money Was Refunded?

One common allegation in fictitious citizenship cases is that the investor appeared to pay the required amount but later received part of the funds back. This may involve transfers back to the investor, relatives, affiliated companies or intermediaries. In such cases, bank records and financial movements may be examined in detail.

If the investor genuinely paid the full purchase price and did not receive any refund, documenting that fact may become one of the most important parts of the legal defence. This issue is especially important where part of the payment was made in cash. The investor may need to demonstrate not only that the required economic amount was paid, but also that he or she did not knowingly participate in a fictitious or circular payment arrangement.

7. Can a Lawsuit Be Filed Against the Revocation of Turkish Citizenship?

Yes. A decision revoking or withdrawing Turkish citizenship is an administrative act and is subject to judicial review.

As a general rule under Turkish administrative procedure, where no special time limit applies, an annulment action must be filed within 60 days following formal notification of the administrative decision. The notification date is therefore extremely important.

The case should not focus only on whether the investment amount was paid. Depending on the legal basis of the decision, the following issues may also need to be examined: whether the administration conducted an individual assessment, what specific statement was considered false, what material fact was allegedly concealed, whether the investment amount was genuinely paid, whether the investor knew of the irregularity, and whether the misconduct of the developer or intermediary can legally be attributed to the investor.

Depending on the circumstances, a request for stay of execution may also be considered. Under Turkish administrative law, a stay of execution may be granted where the administrative act is manifestly unlawful and its enforcement would cause irreparable or difficult-to-repair damage.

8. Does Revocation of Citizenship Automatically Mean Confiscation of Property?

No. This is an important distinction.

The revocation of citizenship does not automatically mean that all property owned by the former citizen is confiscated by the State. Under Article 33 of Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901, if liquidation of property is considered necessary following annulment under Article 31, this must be specifically stated in the annulment decision.

The law also provides an important safeguard: if legal proceedings are initiated against the citizenship annulment decision, liquidation of the person's assets is postponed until the case is concluded.

This is different from a criminal-law seizure order. In criminal investigations, Turkish authorities may impose provisional measures on assets, including real estate, bank accounts, vehicles or company shares, if the legal requirements for seizure are satisfied. Such seizure is a protective measure. It does not automatically mean that ownership of the property has permanently transferred to the State.

Therefore, three concepts should not be confused: revocation of citizenship, liquidation of property, and criminal seizure of assets. They are based on different legal rules and may require different legal remedies.

9. Can the Investor Claim Compensation From the Developer or Real Estate Agency?

Potentially, yes.

If the investor genuinely paid the required amount but the developer, real estate agency or intermediary handled the transaction in violation of the law, separate civil claims may arise. For example, liability may be considered where the intermediary or developer promised that the transaction would qualify for citizenship, declared a lower amount at the land registry without properly informing the investor, failed to transfer the purchase price in the legally required manner, used inaccurate or manipulated valuation reports, failed to record part of the money received from the investor, or structured the transaction in a manner that later caused the citizenship decision to be challenged.

Depending on the facts, claims may include damages, repayment of funds, contractual liability and other legal remedies. These claims are separate from the administrative case concerning citizenship. In the citizenship case, the court examines the legality of the administrative decision. In a civil claim against the developer or intermediary, the main issue is whether the company breached its contractual or legal obligations toward the investor.

10. What Should a Person Facing Citizenship Revocation Do First?

The first step should be to collect and preserve all documents relating to the original property investment and citizenship application. Important documents may include:

1. the original citizenship decision and any later revocation or withdrawal decision;
2. all official notifications;
3. the title deed and official sale deed;
4. the three-year non-sale undertaking;
5. the eligibility certificate;
6. valuation reports;
7. bank transfers and foreign exchange purchase documents;
8. cash withdrawal records;
9. agreements with the developer or real estate agency;
10. receipts and payment documents;
11. WhatsApp and email correspondence;
12. records showing whether any money was refunded;
13. documents contained in any related criminal investigation; and
14. expert reports, financial investigation reports or asset seizure orders.

The entire transaction should then be reconstructed chronologically. In practice, it is particularly useful to compare the amount actually paid by the investor, the amount received by the seller, the amount stated in the official deed, the valuation amount, and the amount declared in the citizenship application. When these figures are placed side by side, the real nature of the dispute often becomes much clearer.

Conclusion

A foreign investor who acquired Turkish citizenship through real estate may face serious consequences if irregularities are later discovered in the underlying transaction. However, a person who genuinely paid the required investment amount should not automatically be treated in the same way as an investor who knowingly participated in a fictitious transaction. In particular, the conduct of the developer, real estate agency, valuation company and other intermediaries must be distinguished from the conduct and knowledge of the investor.

At the same time, the fact that the investor genuinely paid the money does not automatically resolve every legal issue. The formal requirements applicable at the time of the investment, including banking, title deed and documentation requirements, must also be examined carefully.

For this reason, citizenship revocation cases should be reviewed together with the complete property file, bank records, valuation reports, eligibility documents and, where relevant, the documents obtained during criminal investigations. Each case depends heavily on its own facts, transaction date and documentary evidence.

Legal Basis

This article has been prepared principally on the basis of:

• Law No. 5901 on Turkish Citizenship, in particular Articles 31, 33 and 40;
• the general rules of Turkish administrative procedural law governing actions for annulment, notification periods and requests for a stay of execution; and
• general principles of Turkish administrative and criminal law concerning provisional measures on assets.