A vehicle seized in a smuggling case, and the separate work of getting it back.

Law no. 5607 is the smuggling law. It punishes bringing goods into the country without submitting them to customs procedure, evading customs duties by deceptive conduct, and bringing in goods whose import is prohibited. Sections 10 and 13 of that Law contain its own rules on vehicles.

Narcotics are not treated as ordinary smuggled goods. Section 3(7) of Law 5607 punishes bringing in goods whose import is prohibited by law with two to six years' imprisonment and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days — but only where the act does not constitute an offence requiring a heavier penalty. Unlicensed import of narcotics carries twenty to thirty years under TCK 188/1. The heavier article takes the driver, and the file is normally run under TCK 188 rather than the smuggling law.

The vehicle then follows whichever framework the file sits in.

Who may order the seizure, and how fast a judge has to confirm it. This follows from which of the two routes above is being used, and it is worth checking early. Where the vehicle is seized as property used in the offence, CMK 127/1 allows the seizure to be carried out on a judge's decision, on the written order of the public prosecutor where delay is prejudicial, and on the written order of a law enforcement chief where the prosecutor cannot be reached. A seizure made without a judge's decision is submitted to the competent judge within twenty-four hours, and the judge announces the decision within forty-eight hours of the seizure; failing that, the seizure lapses of itself (CMK 127/3). Where instead the vehicle is said to be proceeds and CMK 128 is the basis, there is no prosecutor's route at all — only a judge may make that order (CMK 128/9).

This page cannot tell you which of these your case is in. The seizure record and the indictment name the article. Those two documents decide which deadlines below are running against you, and they should be read before anything else.

Seizure and detention are not the same step. Under section 10(1), a vehicle used in committing an offence defined in Law 5607 is seized in accordance with CMK 128/4. Under section 10(2), the seized vehicle is then detained by the authority that ordered the seizure in three situations:

• the case falls within section 13(1)(a) — the goods were hidden or carried in a specially prepared concealed compartment;
• the vehicle is not registered on a register in Türkiye;
• the vehicle is used again in a smuggling offence while the investigation or prosecution is continuing.

Once a vehicle is detained, section 10(2) gives one route out of it. If the owner delivers to the customs administration a security equal to the value of the vehicle within thirty days of the date of detention, the vehicle is returned to the owner. If that is not done, the liquidation administration liquidates the vehicle immediately, without waiting for the outcome of the investigation and the prosecution.

Section 10(5) defines the value that the security is measured against: for land vehicles, the kasko value; for sea vehicles, the value forming the basis of hull and machinery insurance; for uninsured vehicles and for air and rail vehicles, the market value. A vehicle insured abroad has no Turkish kasko value, which pushes the calculation onto market value — and a valuation is a figure that can be wrong and can be challenged.

Under section 11(1), the vehicle is handed over to the customs administration under a record showing its distinguishing features: quantity, kind, make, type, model, serial number. That record is the document against which any later dispute about condition is fought.

Section 10(3), added in 2021, covers vehicles that were physically handed to the customs administration or to a judicial custodian on suspicion of carrying smuggled goods, are under a seizure order, but were not detained under section 10(2). If the owner does not collect such a vehicle within ninety days of notification by the customs administration, covering storage and other costs, it is liquidated immediately, again without waiting for the outcome of the case.

Note what the owner is being asked to pay. Section 10(3) puts the storage and other costs on the person collecting the vehicle. A lorry sitting in a customs depot for months accrues those costs daily.

Section 16 sets the outer limits. For goods seized on suspicion of smuggling — fuel aside — a liquidation decision is given by the judge during investigation or the court during prosecution within six months of the date of seizure, or within one month where the goods risk damage or a substantial loss of value, or where keeping them is a serious burden. If no decision is given inside those periods, the goods are liquidated immediately. Samples are taken first where that is possible; where it is not, the distinguishing features are recorded.

Section 16(1) also states plainly that goods to which the confiscation sanction may apply, because they constitute the subject-matter of the offence, cannot be returned to the owner. The narcotics are never coming back. The argument is only ever about the vehicle.

What is left if the vehicle has already been sold

Under section 10(4), where liquidation takes the form of a sale, all the costs of keeping and selling the vehicle are met out of the sale proceeds first, and only the remainder is placed in a deposit account to be dealt with according to the outcome of the prosecution.

Under section 16(2), if a decision is later given to return the vehicle to its owner, the sale price is paid to the entitled person with statutory interest from the date of seizure to the date of return, in accordance with section 180 of the Customs Law. Where the deposit account does not cover the payment, the difference is met by the customs administration from the relevant budget line.

That is a remedy in money, not a remedy in the vehicle. A haulage business that needs its own tractor unit back is not made whole by a sale price and interest, and the sale price is what remains after storage and sale costs have been taken out of it.

Section 13(1) begins by applying the Turkish Criminal Code provisions on confiscation of goods and of gains. It then narrows them for vehicles. For a means of transport knowingly used, or attempted to be used, in carrying smuggled goods, confiscation requires one of the following:

• (a) the smuggled goods were hidden or carried inside a specially prepared concealed compartment designed to facilitate the offence or to prevent the act being discovered;
• (b) the smuggled goods constitute all or the predominant part of the vehicle's load by quantity or volume, or their carriage made the use of that vehicle necessary;
• (c) the goods in the vehicle are among substances prohibited from entering or leaving Türkiye, or harmful to public or environmental health.

Because these are alternatives, the familiar argument — that a few kilograms in a forty-tonne load cannot be the predominant part of the cargo — answers condition (b) and leaves (a) and (c) untouched. Narcotics are a substance whose entry is prohibited. Where the file is run under Law 5607, condition (c) is the one that decides most of these cases, and the size of the load does not affect it.

Section 13(2) adds a point that surprises people who have cooperated. Where effective remorse means that no penalty is imposed on the offender or that the public case is dismissed, that does not prevent the confiscation provisions being applied — but the sentence is limited to the goods that are the subject-matter of the offence.

Where the file is run under TCK 188

Then TCK 54 governs, and its own limits apply:

• 54(1). Property used in the commission of an intentional offence is confiscated provided it does not belong to third parties acting in good faith. Where a limited real right has been established over the property in favour of a good-faith third party, the confiscation order is made subject to that right.
• 54(3). Where confiscating property used in the offence would produce consequences heavier than the offence itself and would therefore be inequitable, confiscation need not be ordered.
• 54(6). Where several people own the property jointly, only the share of the person who participated in the offence is confiscated.

The vehicle is defended on different material from the driver. Acquittal of the driver does not by itself hand the keys back, and a driver who is convicted does not automatically cost a good-faith owner his lorry.

• Who owns it, on paper. Registered keeper, operator, lessor, finance holder. TCK 54(1) turns on ownership and good faith, and the last sentence of that paragraph protects limited real rights of good-faith third parties. A leasing company or a haulage firm that had no part in the load is arguing from a different position than the driver.
• The word “knowingly” in section 13(1). Confiscation of the vehicle is expressed as requiring that it was knowingly used in carrying the goods. Knowledge is an element of the vehicle's fate, not only of the driver's guilt.
• The concealed compartment. Condition (a) is a finding of fact about the structure of the vehicle. Whether what was found is a purpose-built compartment or an ordinary void, who built it, and when, are questions for examination and expert evidence.
• The seizure record and the search. What was recorded, where the vehicle stopped, who was present, whether the record reflects what happened.
• The twenty-four and forty-eight hours after the seizure. Where the vehicle was seized on a prosecutor's or a law enforcement chief's written order rather than a judge's decision, the file should show that the seizure was put before the judge within twenty-four hours and that the judge ruled within forty-eight hours of the seizure. Under CMK 127/3 a seizure that was not confirmed in time lapses of itself, and that is a point taken from the dates on the documents rather than from argument.
• The valuation. The security under section 10(2) is measured by the value defined in section 10(5). A figure produced quickly at a border post is capable of being too high.
• CMK 131(1). Where seized property is no longer needed for the investigation or prosecution, or where it is understood that it will not be subject to confiscation, its return is ordered by the public prosecutor, the judge or the court, of their own motion or on application. A refusal can be objected to.
• CMK 268(1). An objection against a decision of a judge or a court is made within two weeks of the day the person concerned learns of it, by petition to the authority that gave the decision. That authority corrects its own decision if it agrees, and otherwise sends the file to the reviewing authority within three days at most.
• CMK 141(1)(j). A person whose property or other assets were seized without the conditions being met, or were not protected, or were used for purposes other than intended, or were not returned in time, may claim all pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss from the State.

The order in which these are done matters more here than in most files, because thirty days, ninety days and six months are all running at once and none of them pauses while a decision is being made abroad.

The plate is the trigger

Section 10(2) detains a vehicle that is not registered on a register in Türkiye. No suspicion beyond that is required for detention. A Turkish-plated vehicle in the same case, with no concealed compartment and no repeat offence, is not detained on that ground.

The owner is usually not in the country

In most of these files the registered owner is a company abroad and the driver is an employee. Thirty days is a short period in which to obtain a power of attorney from a foreign company, have it apostilled, translated and notarised, and place a security with a Turkish customs administration. That work should start on the day the vehicle is detained, not when the criminal case is understood.

Consular notification

Under CMK 95(2), where the person apprehended or taken into custody is a foreign national, the position is notified to the consulate of the State of which he is a national, unless he objects in writing. A consulate does not defend the case and does not recover the vehicle, but it is a channel to the family.

Interpretation

Under CMK 202, where the accused does not know Turkish well enough to explain himself, the essential points of the accusation and the defence at the hearing are translated by a court-appointed interpreter. The same applies to a suspect heard during the investigation, where the interpreter is appointed by the judge or the prosecutor. Statements about a load, a route, a consignor and a set of documents are exactly the material that is lost when interpretation is loose.

Leaving the country

Under CMK 109(3)(a), a prohibition on leaving the country is one of the listed judicial control obligations. A driver released from remand is frequently released into that obligation, and cannot drive home. Under CMK 109(3)(d) the court may also prohibit the use of vehicles and require the surrender of a driving licence, although under CMK 109(5) permission to drive for professional purposes may be given.

The immigration consequence is separate

What happens to your ability to remain in and return to Türkiye is decided in a different process under different legislation, with its own short deadlines, and it is not resolved by the criminal file ending. It is dealt with on the deportation page.