Crypto Asset LawFamily LawInformation Technology LawInheritance LawHow Can Cryptocurrency Assets Concealed by a Spouse Be Identified in a Divorce?

In the context of divorce and the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, the fact that a crypto-asset is held in the name of one of the spouses on an exchange or in a personal wallet does not imply that the other spouse holds a direct right in rem over that asset. However, if the cryptocurrency constitutes property acquired during the marriage, it may constitute an asset that must be included in the settlement.

Under the Turkish Civil Code, the community of acquired property regime between spouses is recognised as the default regime. Acquired property refers to the value of assets obtained in return for consideration during the duration of the matrimonial property regime. From a legal perspective, a crypto asset is not a tangible object; it is a digital asset possessing economic value. Therefore, whether a crypto asset is subject to division depends on the date of acquisition, the source of funds, and which spouse acquired it.

Simply concealing a wallet, closing a stock exchange account or transferring assets to third parties is not, in itself, sufficient to exclude a crypto-asset from liquidation. The key question is whether, on the date the matrimonial property regime ended or during the period relevant for liquidation, the spouse was economically in possession of this asset.

An important procedural clarification must also be made here: Article 279 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) is not a provision for requesting information from a bank or exchange. Article 279 of the HMK regulates the scope of the expert’s report and the limits of the expert’s remit. The expert may conduct an investigation into matters requiring specialised or technical knowledge; however, they may not make legal characterisations or assessments. The production of bank and platform records, on the other hand, is carried out through the court’s powers to gather evidence, orders for the production of documents, letters of request and, where necessary, interim measures.

The Consequences of Concealing Crypto Assets in the Liquidation of the Matrimonial Property Regime

A spouse’s concealment of a crypto asset may give rise to three distinct legal consequences.

Firstly, a breach of the principle of good faith arises. A spouse cannot completely disregard information relating to their own assets during the division of matrimonial property. In particular, if the other spouse has limited access to evidence, the deliberate withholding of information and documents that should be submitted to the court may be deemed an abuse of rights under Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code.

Secondly, the concealed asset may be included in the division of assets. If the spouse’s cryptocurrency asset was acquired using income earned during the marriage, the asset or its equivalent value as at the date of division is included in the calculation. If it is claimed that the asset was originally personal property, the grounds for this claim are examined separately. The mere presence of the cryptocurrency in a wallet does not, in itself, indicate the source from which it was acquired.

Thirdly, Article 229 of the Turkish Civil Code may apply in respect of transfers made with the intention of concealing assets or reducing the spouse’s share of the marital property. The current legislation stipulates that extraordinary gratuitous transfers made without the other spouse’s consent within one year prior to the termination of the matrimonial property regime, and transfers carried out with the intent to reduce the share in the joint property, shall be added to the value of the acquired property.

The approach outlined in this section highlights the importance of including the value of the crypto-asset in the calculation of the share in the joint property, rather than transferring the crypto-asset directly into joint ownership. However, it should also be noted that, due to the specific technical structure of crypto-assets, this approach does not automatically resolve the issue of transfer authorisation on the blockchain.

Bank Account Transactions

Bank records are often the strongest initial evidence for identifying concealed crypto assets. This is because the initial Turkish lira deposits made to crypto exchanges, withdrawals from the exchange to a bank account, and payment transactions linked to the exchange can be seen on bank statements.

The records that need to be examined are as follows:

• Turkish lira bank transfers and electronic transfers made to exchanges,
• Withdrawals from exchanges to bank accounts,
• High-value fund movements made on the same day or around the same time,
• Fund transfers prior to the purchase of crypto assets,
• It is assessed in conjunction with whether a transfer has taken place.

In the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, as a general rule, the other spouse’s claim will not be a right in rem but will constitute a personal claim in the nature of a share in the proceeds. For this reason, it is not possible in all cases to request the court to directly transfer ownership of a specific amount of Bitcoin or Ethereum. The claim must be structured such that the asset is included in the liquidation account and the claim is determined accordingly.

A bank statement may not explicitly state “Bitcoin purchase”. Therefore, reliance should not be placed on a single description line alone. The date, amount, counter-account, exchange name, transaction volume and electronic correspondence from the same period must be assessed together.

A request may be made to the court to issue a formal letter to the relevant banks requesting bank records. The request must not be general or unrestricted. It must specify which banks, which date range, which accounts and which types of transactions are to be investigated.

If there is a risk of concealment or transfer, an interim measure may be sought to prevent the withdrawal of assets from bank accounts and accounts held on cryptocurrency exchanges. The scope of the measure should not be so excessive as to render the spouse’s entire estate inaccessible; rather, it should be established to the extent necessary to safeguard the assets in dispute.

Tax Returns and Financial Records

As of 2026, it cannot be generally accepted that gains from crypto assets are subject to an automatic and general reporting obligation for every natural person. Taxation must be assessed according to the nature of the transaction, the continuity of the individual’s activities, the existence or otherwise of a commercial or professional organisation, the type of income received, and the specific regulations in force.

For this reason, the categorical statement that ‘as of 2026, all crypto gains must be declared’ is not legally sound. Conversely, a declaration regarding crypto transactions in a spouse’s tax return, commercial ledgers, company records or correspondence with a tax adviser may constitute significant evidence.

The following documents may be examined:

• Income tax or corporation tax returns,
• Records of self-employment or commercial income,
• Company accounting records,
• Correspondence with a tax adviser,
• Invoices or receipts relating to the purchase and sale of crypto assets,
• Records relating to the capitalisation of assets,
• Credit and investment portfolio documents.

The absence of a tax record does not imply that the crypto asset does not exist. Similarly, an amount stated in a tax return may not directly reflect the actual balance as at the date of liquidation. Tax documents must be cross-checked against bank statements and blockchain records.

Request for Information from Cryptocurrency Exchanges

It is possible to request information from crypto-asset service providers operating in Turkey through the courts. However, the formal request must clearly specify the spouse’s identity details, the user account, the date range and the types of records required.

The information that may be requested includes the following:

• The account’s opening and closing dates,
• KYC records,
• Amounts in Turkish lira deposited into and withdrawn from the account,
• Crypto-asset buy and sell orders,
• Wallet addresses,
• Transfers made outside the platform,
• Asset balances within the platform,
• Time-stamped statements of account transactions,
• Communication and security logs.

The practice of Turkish platforms in responding to court summonses may vary depending on the scope of the request and the clarity of the order. The platform may raise issues regarding the protection of personal data, client confidentiality and questions of authority. However, where records are requested via a properly served court order, the provision of information or the forwarding of records to the court may be required.

In the case of foreign exchanges, however, a Turkish court’s writ does not always produce direct results. The country in which the platform is located, whether the company has a representative in Turkey, international judicial assistance mechanisms and the relevant country’s data transfer rules all become significant factors. The claimant may apply directly to the foreign stock exchange; however, authorisation and identity verification are likely to be required for the disclosure of information relating to the spouse’s account.

Applications made with an insufficient power of attorney are often unsuccessful. In particular, the client’s own account must be distinguished from the opposing party’s account; a court order or explicit authorisation must be provided to obtain information regarding the opposing party’s account.

On-chain Analysis and Blockchain Records

Public addresses, transaction histories and movements on the blockchain may be important in identifying a spouse’s crypto assets. However, the conclusion that an address belongs to a spouse cannot be reached solely on the basis of knowing the address.

The following elements must be examined together in on-chain analysis:

• The initial transfer from the exchange to the wallet,
• The temporal alignment between the amount sent from the spouse’s bank account to the exchange,
• The wallet’s transaction patterns,
• Recurring transfers between addresses,
• Hardware or software wallet records,
• Address details in the spouse’s electronic correspondence,
• The link between transactions and the exchange account,
• The transfer of assets to other addresses and centralised platforms.

Blockchain records can show that a transaction took place and which movements a specific address made at a specific time. However, they do not directly reveal the identity of the private key holder. For this reason, address ownership must be supported by bank and exchange records.

An expert report is not always required for the submission of an on-chain report to the court. Technical reports, screenshots, transaction IDs and block explorer outputs submitted by the parties may be considered as preliminary evidence or documentary evidence. However, if establishing address ownership, interpreting the blockchain, creating wallet sets or unravelling mixed transactions requires technical expertise, an expert examination must be requested.

Under Article 279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an expert may only provide explanations on matters requiring specialised or technical knowledge; the legal conclusion that ‘this asset belongs to the defendant’ rests with the court.

There is not yet sufficient case law to state that Turkish courts accept on-chain address analysis as a standalone and established method of evidence. Address analysis may be strong as supporting evidence; however, a mere clustering report not supported by bank, exchange, electronic correspondence or device examinations may not be deemed sufficient on its own.

MASAK Records and Requests for Information

MASAK is an administrative body responsible for preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism. As a general rule, it is not possible for a solicitor to apply directly to MASAK to request the opposing party’s full cryptocurrency asset records on the grounds of a private claim for debt in a divorce and matrimonial property settlement case.

MASAK records do not constitute a register of assets to which a party may freely access in a private law case. Requests for information arise within the framework of the statutory powers of the competent public authorities and in the context of relevant investigations or audit processes.

In the specific case in question, if there is a suspicion of money laundering, fraud, forgery, the laundering of assets derived from crime, or any other offence, an application may be made to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Public Prosecutor’s Office may, within the scope of its investigative powers, request information from the relevant financial institutions and, where necessary, from other bodies. The court may also request any records it deems necessary from the relevant institutions within the scope of the dispute before it.

However, the mere allegation that a spouse has failed to disclose their crypto assets in divorce proceedings does not, in itself, warrant an investigation by MASAK. A dispute over the matrimonial property regime should not be confused with a criminal investigation.

Ineffective or Inadequate Approaches

A mere statement such as ‘I believe my spouse has crypto assets’ is, in most cases, insufficient to prompt the court to conduct a specific investigation. Suspicion may be the starting point for a request for investigation; however, it must be substantiated by evidence such as bank statements, the name of the exchange, wallet addresses, message logs, device information or transaction dates.

Technically inadequate documents also pose problems. Screenshots lacking dates and transaction IDs, lists of addresses without clarification of which wallet they belong to, balance screenshots without a valuation date, and spreadsheet files of unknown origin all diminish the evidential value.

In applications made to an exchange, an insufficient power of attorney may also result in the application being unsuccessful. If the person requesting information regarding the other party’s account is neither an heir nor the account holder, they may not be able to obtain information from the platform based solely on a general power of attorney. In such cases, a court order, a clear statement of purpose and, where necessary, the legal basis for the transfer of personal data must be provided.

Procedure and Duration of Interim Measures

An interim measure may be sought if there is a risk that, due to a change in the current situation, the enforcement of a right would become significantly more difficult, impossible, or if serious harm would result from any delay.

During divorce proceedings, claims relating to the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime may, in most cases, be raised separately or after the divorce decree has become final. The court with jurisdiction over interim measures is determined according to the main dispute to which the application relates. For interim measures in divorce proceedings, the Family Court has jurisdiction; for a request for an independent measure aimed at protecting a crypto-asset as part of the property subject to liquidation, the court with jurisdiction over the main claim or the liquidation proceedings must be assessed.

The application for an interim measure should not merely state that ‘cryptocurrency assets should be frozen’. It must be specified which exchange account, which address, which date range and which transaction poses a risk. To ensure the enforceability of the interim order, the court must identify the account holder, the account and the transaction to be subject to the order in the written notice to be sent to the platform.

If the application for an interim order is granted, the enforcement of the order and, where necessary, the provision of security will be required. Following the enforcement of the interim order, the main proceedings must be initiated or the relevant claim raised in the existing proceedings within the statutory time limits. These time limits must be calculated in accordance with the specific interim order; failure to meet the deadline may result in the risk of the interim order being lifted.

The identification of concealed crypto assets in a divorce does not rely on a single piece of evidence; rather, it is based on the mutual corroboration of bank transactions, exchange records, tax documents, electronic data and blockchain transactions. It is significant not only that a spouse conceals the wallet address, but also that they conceal the source of the asset and its economic nature during the period of the matrimonial property regime.

In most cases, bank statements constitute the strongest initial evidence. A bank statement may reveal an exchange; an exchange record may reveal a wallet address; whilst on-chain analysis may determine the address’s transaction history. However, as the practice of accepting address analysis as evidence has not yet become established in Turkish courts, it does not, on its own, constitute a reliable basis for proof.

The concrete step that needs to be taken today is to draw up a map of evidence regarding bank, stock exchange and known blockchain addresses, based on the date of termination of the matrimonial property regime; and, if there is a risk of transfer or account depletion, to request that the relevant records be produced by court order, together with an application for an enforceable interim measure.