You sold crypto assets on a platform. Once the payment shown by the buyer reached your bank account, you released the assets. Later, your bank account was restricted or you learned that the incoming funds were linked to another person’s fraud complaint. You may regard the transfer as payment for a sale while the bank sender says that they do not know you.
In brief: A platform record showing a crypto sale can help explain the link between the payment and the transfer of assets, but it does not eliminate every possible legal issue. The identity of the buyer, whether that person matches the sender shown by the bank, and the circumstances of the transaction must be examined together.
Why can a three-party payment structure create problems?
In one common scenario, a fraudster asks a victim to pay for goods that do not exist but provides the bank details of an unrelated P2P crypto seller. The seller sees the payment, assumes it came from the crypto buyer and releases the assets. The person sending the bank transfer and the person receiving the crypto are therefore different.
Not every third-party payment reflects this scenario. However, where several people are involved in the payment flow, the approach that “the money arrived, so the sale is complete” may be insufficient. The bank transfer, platform order and on-chain record should be reconciled to understand the full transaction.
What evidence should be preserved?
- The platform order number, listing, transaction date and user records.
- Complete records of communications with the buyer.
- The bank sender’s name, IBAN, amount and transfer description.
- The platform record of crypto delivery and, where relevant, the on-chain transaction hash.
- Support tickets, dispute submissions and bank notices.
- Previous transactions with the same user and the genuine chronology of events.
A single screenshot showing that the order was completed may not be enough. How a third-party payment was explained in the chat, whether a name mismatch was noticed and whether any commission was discussed can be relevant. Preserve the original records rather than cropped screenshots that remove context.
How is potential criminal liability assessed?
The fact that money entered your account does not automatically make you the perpetrator of fraud. The authorities may nevertheless examine knowledge and intent, repeated transactions, facts suggesting a connection with the offence and any financial benefit. A defence should be supported by verifiable transaction records rather than relying only on the statement that “I was also a victim”.
If you are called to give a statement, determine the transaction concerned and the capacity in which you are being heard. The right to legal assistance should be considered where you are treated as a suspect. A witness statement and a suspect’s defence are not the same procedural act.
Lifting a bank restriction is a separate process
A dispute raised with the platform does not automatically remove a banking or judicial restriction. A bank’s internal control, a postponement under Law No. 5549 and a measure imposed under the Code of Criminal Procedure have different legal bases. The correct authority and deadline cannot be identified until the type of measure is known.
A table linking each payment to the related crypto transfer can be useful, but it does not replace the underlying evidence. Each line should be supported by a bank, platform or blockchain record.
Should you return the incoming money to another account?
Do not make a fresh payment to a different IBAN merely because someone contacts you claiming to be the victim or a platform employee. That may create a second loss and make the first transaction more difficult to explain. Any refund should be assessed against the identity of the rightful claimant, the bank’s process and any judicial measure in force.
The criminal investigation and any civil claim for repayment or damages are separate questions. The fact that you delivered crypto does not automatically provide the same defence to every claim by the person who sent the bank payment.
Frequently asked questions
Does KYC on the platform fully protect me?
No. KYC records can be important evidence, but the authorities may also examine who actually controlled the account and who sent the bank transfer.
Can an investigation arise from a single transaction?
Yes. The number of transactions is relevant but is not, by itself, a conclusive measure of guilt or innocence.
DISCUSS YOUR CASE
Discuss a bank restriction after a P2P crypto sale
We can review platform transaction records, payment matching and the bank’s notice to assess your options under Turkish law.
A brief summary and important dates are enough for an initial enquiry. Send documents only when requested by our lawyers, through the channel they specify. Do not share passwords, one-time codes or wallet keys.
Sources and legislation
Law No. 5549 on the Prevention of Laundering Proceeds of Crime
Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271
Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237
Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098
Originally prepared on 8 September 2026. This article provides general information on Turkish law. Remedies and deadlines should be assessed against the documents and circumstances of each case. The image is illustrative.
Related reading
My Bank Account Was Restricted under Article 19/A
The Bank Is Asking About the Source of My Funds
Related practice area: Financial Crime & MASAK.