Annulment and Withdrawal of Turkish Citizenship Acquired by Investment: Article 31, Article 40, and the Valuation Question

A Notice Before the Analysis

The operation described in this article is the subject of proceedings that have not concluded. The persons referred to in the statement of the Ministry of Interior are suspects, whose cases lie before the competent authorities and courts, and the figures and characterisations quoted from that statement are the allegations of the administration, not judicial findings. Judicial determination lies ahead in every file. This article passes no judgment on any person; it examines the legal framework only, and it names no individual.

The Figure That Has Been Reported, and What It Actually Contains

On 4 August 2026, the Ministry of Interior published a press statement concerning what it described as an operation into false valuation and expertise reports and irregular citizenship transactions. The figure that has been reported internationally since that date, 6,134, derives from that statement. The statement deserves to be read precisely, because the reporting has flattened two quite different measures into a single number.

The Ministry's own text separates them. In the first group, according to the statement, the investment eligibility certificates of 1,150 investors, described by the Ministry as having carried out collusive or irregular transactions, were cancelled, and the citizenship decisions of 5,391 persons, family members included, were annulled. In the second group, the citizenship decisions of 263 investors, amounting with their families to 743 persons in total, were withdrawn on the ground, as the statement puts it, that the legal conditions had not been formed. Taken together, the statement therefore concerns 1,413 investors and 6,134 persons, proceeded against under Articles 31 and 40 of the Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 (Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu).

The Ministry also recorded a further tranche covering the period from 11 February 2026 onward, comprising 443 investors and, with their families, 1,358 persons, and it stated that the operation involved 72 suspects across 16 provinces and was conducted together with the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre (TKGM), the Tax Inspection Board, and the General Directorate of Security. It characterised the alleged conduct as confined to the attempted forgery of documents submitted before application, and it stated that no fault attached to the personnel of the Directorate General of Population and Citizenship Affairs. Each of these figures and characterisations is the administration's own account, and the underlying files remain subject to the proceedings noted above.

There are, then, two provisions at work and not one, and the distinction between them is not academic. For an affected investor it is the most consequential fact in the file.

Article 31 and Article 40 Are Not the Same Thing

Article 31 of the Law No. 5901 governs annulment, in Turkish iptal, and its text is narrow:

A decision to acquire Turkish citizenship shall be annulled by the authority that issued it where it came about as a result of the person's false declaration or concealment of material matters forming the basis for acquisition of citizenship.

The provision recognises two grounds only, and both are personal to the applicant: false declaration, and the concealment of material matters. Article 57 of the Implementing Regulation, enacted by Council of Ministers Decision No. 2010/139 and published in the Resmî Gazete of 6 April 2010, No. 27544, adds the procedural condition that the Ministry investigates and that annulment follows only where the concealment or false declaration is proven.

Article 40 governs withdrawal, in Turkish geri alma, and its text is wider and requires no dishonesty at all:

Decisions concerning the acquisition or loss of Turkish citizenship shall be withdrawn where it is subsequently understood that they were given without the legal conditions having been formed, or that they were duplicative.

Article 66 of the Regulation adds a third ground, namely that the decision was given in error, together with one further consequence discussed below.

The difference in what follows from the two provisions is sharp, and it is set out in Article 32 of the Law and in Articles 58 and 66 of the Regulation. An annulment under Article 31 takes effect from the date of the annulment decision and operates forward, so that transactions carried out in the capacity of a Turkish citizen between acquisition and annulment are expressly unaffected; it extends to the spouse and to the children who acquired citizenship dependently, but not to a child born after the acquisition, and not to a spouse who acquired citizenship by marriage. A withdrawal under Article 40, by contrast, renders the decision void from the date of the original decision and operates backward, so that the person is treated as never having been a citizen.

An investor who has been told only that his citizenship has been cancelled does not yet know his position. Which article was applied determines whether the intervening years stand.

Where the Valuation Actually Sits in the Legal Test

For the real estate route the threshold is four hundred thousand United States dollars, set by Article 20(2)(b) of the Implementing Regulation. What the circulars issued by the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre in 2024 changed was not that figure, but the manner in which the figure is proved.

Circular 2024/2, dated 1 March 2024 and in force from 4 March 2024, provides that for citizenship applications following a sale or a promise of sale concluded after that date, only valuation reports prepared by GEDAŞ Gayrimenkul Değerleme A.Ş. will be accepted, and that a valuation report used in title transactions is valid for three months. The appraiser is accordingly no longer selected by the parties.

Circular 2024/4, as amended on 9 December 2024, together with its accompanying Guide, governs the amount-confirmation document and provides that the interval between that document and the citizenship application must not exceed six months, failing which the underlying valuation must be renewed.

The Guide also sets out the test that matters most in the present context. The deed price, the payment transfers, and the confirmed amount must each separately meet the threshold; it is not sufficient that they do so in aggregate. A file in which the recorded price and the appraised value diverge from what was actually paid does not satisfy the test, and the Council of State has held that this requirement of consistency across the three criteria is lawful, describing its purpose as the prevention of forgery, irregularity, and tax evasion (Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2022/194, K. 2025/5781, 4 December 2025).

The Guide further requires the buyer to acknowledge, within the transaction itself, that if the information and documents submitted are found to be incomplete, incorrect, or misleading, proceedings will follow under Article 31 of the Law No. 5901. That warning is not buried in a circular; it is signed by the buyer.

Why the Incentive Ran in the Wrong Direction

The mechanism that, according to the Ministry's statement and to the regulatory response of 2024, produced the files in question is not complicated, and it deserves to be stated plainly, because the investor is usually the last person in the chain to understand it.

Where an intermediary's remuneration is calculated as a percentage of the transaction price, every participant in the chain is paid more when the recorded price is higher. A property worth three hundred thousand United States dollars does not qualify, whereas the same property presented at four hundred thousand does, and the commission upon it is larger. In the arrangements the authorities have described, the valuation report is the document that makes the second version look like the first, and under the regime that preceded 2024, the party who commissioned that report was often the same party whose fee depended upon its conclusion.

The investor, meanwhile, pays the inflated figure. He does not receive an asset worth what he paid; he receives an asset worth what it was in fact worth. When he comes to sell after the three-year holding period, the market corrects the difference at his expense, and if the file is later examined, he is the person named in the citizenship decision.

This is the aspect of the arrangement that is rarely explained to him. The intermediary's exposure ends when the commission is paid, whereas the investor's exposure runs for as long as Articles 31 and 40 remain in force, and those provisions carry no limitation period.

An attorney's position in the transaction is different in kind. The obligation runs to the client, the file must be capable of surviving examination years later, and the professional consequences of a defective file attach to the lawyer personally under the Advocacy Law No. 1136. That is not a claim about diligence; it is a statement about where the risk sits.

What the 2024 Circulars Changed, and What They Did Not

The circulars changed the future. Since 4 March 2024 the appraiser has been assigned rather than chosen, and this removes the principal mechanism by which, on the administration's account, valuations were inflated.

The circulars did not change the past. Articles 31 and 40 of the Law No. 5901 have been in force since 2009 and are subject to no limitation period. The Ministry's figures of August 2026 cover grants made across the whole life of the programme. A citizenship granted in 2021 was not granted under the assigned-appraiser regime and cannot be faulted for failing to comply with a circular that did not then exist, but it remains within the reach of the two provisions that have applied throughout.

There is a corresponding protection, and investors should know that it exists. The Council of State has held that a withdrawal under Article 40 requires a legal or factual circumstance existing at or before the date of the naturalisation act, so that later events cannot found it, and that the grounds must be established by concrete and objective information leaving no room for doubt (10th Chamber, E. 2023/4836, K. 2024/6781, 24 December 2024). In another matter, the Court annulled a Presidential withdrawal where the administration had relied upon material it already held before the grant (10th Chamber, E. 2022/7637, K. 2025/3313, 26 June 2025).

"My Citizenship Has Been Annulled. What Can I Do?"

The answer begins with the question set out above, namely which article was applied. It is the first matter to establish, and it is not always apparent from the notification. An investor who considers that no fault attaches to him, because he declared nothing false and concealed nothing, has a direct interest in that question, and the options described below exist precisely for such cases.

The Law No. 5901 provides routes for the re-acquisition of citizenship in Articles 13, 14, and 43. On their terms, none of those routes reaches a person whose investment citizenship was annulled under Article 31 or withdrawn under Article 40, since those articles address persons who renounced with permission, who lost citizenship as dependants, who were deprived of citizenship under Article 29, or who lost it under earlier legislation. There is no restoration mechanism built for the present situation.

What remains is a fresh application, that is to say, a new application under Article 12(1)(b) founded upon a new and fully compliant investment, or ordinary naturalisation under Article 11. Nothing in the Law bars a fresh application, but two provisions govern how it will be received. Article 12(1) requires that the applicant present no circumstance constituting an obstacle in terms of national security and public order, and Article 10(1) states expressly that the fulfilment of the required conditions confers no absolute right to citizenship.

It is at this point that the distinction between the two articles becomes decisive rather than merely interesting. Article 31 requires a proven false declaration or concealment, which is a finding personal to the applicant. Article 40 requires no dishonesty at all, and it can therefore apply to a file in which the applicant himself declared nothing false and concealed nothing. The statute bars neither person from making a fresh application. In either case, the ground on which the earlier decision rested forms part of the record that the administration will examine under Article 12(1), and no published decision known to the office yet establishes how the two grounds are weighed upon a fresh application. The assessment of any individual position therefore belongs to consultation, and not to a general statement.

Where the decision is contested, the general position under Turkish law is that adverse administrative decisions may be challenged before the administrative courts. Actions against Presidential decisions are heard by the Council of State at first instance under Article 24(1)(a) of the Law No. 2575 on the Council of State, and strict time limits apply. The procedural requirements governing such actions are exacting, and a defect in the form of the petition can dispose of an action before its merits are ever examined, which is itself a reason to treat the procedural side of the matter with the same seriousness as the substance from the outset. Where an annulment stands, Article 33 requires the liquidation of Turkish assets within one year, but it expressly suspends that period where judicial proceedings have been commenced.

None of this can be assessed from the outside. The article applied, what the file actually contains, what the administration relied upon, the position of the spouse and of each child, and whether a fresh application is realistic are all matters that turn upon the documents. They are the subject of an assessment, and not of an article.

Where This Leaves an Investor

The programme has not changed. The routes, the thresholds, and the three-year holding period stand as they were. What the figures of August 2026 record is administrative action against files which, according to the Ministry's statement, did not meet the requirements, and, in the great majority of the cases described in that statement, action directed at documents prepared before the application was ever made. Whether those descriptions are borne out is a matter for the proceedings that lie ahead.

The lesson that an investor may take from the figures is narrow and practical. The document that determines whether the investment qualifies is not within the intermediary's gift, and the person who bears the consequence of a defective file is the applicant. A file assembled to satisfy a commission will satisfy a commission, whereas a file assembled to satisfy Article 12(1)(b) is a different document altogether.

If your citizenship decision has been annulled or withdrawn, or if you are concerned about the valuation on which your application was based, Attorney Abdulsamed Burak Turak will review the file and give you a case-specific assessment covering the provision applied, the position of your family members, and the options that remain open. Requests for an appointment are made through the contact page.

This article is published for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice, and it expresses no conclusion on any person, application, or pending proceeding. Turak Law Office assumes no responsibility for decisions taken on the basis of this text, and the reader remains responsible for verifying that the information is current at the time of reading, since legislation and administrative practice change. Certainty on any individual position can be obtained only in consultation, and an appointment with Attorney Abdulsamed Burak Turak may be arranged through the contact page of the office.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has Türkiye ended the citizenship by investment programme?

No. The Ministry of Interior's statement of August 2026 concerns administrative action against individual files, as described in that statement. The investment routes, the thresholds, and the three-year holding requirement are unchanged.

What is the difference between annulment and withdrawal?

Annulment under Article 31 of the Law No. 5901 requires proven false declaration or concealment by the applicant and takes effect from the date of the annulment decision. Withdrawal under Article 40 requires only that the legal conditions were not formed, and it takes effect retroactively from the date of the original decision.

Does the decision affect my spouse and children?

An annulment extends to a spouse and to children who acquired citizenship dependently upon the principal applicant. It does not extend to a child born after the acquisition, nor to a spouse who acquired citizenship by marriage.

My property was appraised above what I believe it was worth. Is my citizenship at risk?

That question cannot be answered without the file. The relevant test is whether the deed price, the payments made, and the confirmed amount each independently met the threshold. An assessment of the documents is the only way to establish the position.

Can I apply again after an annulment or withdrawal?

The Law No. 5901 contains no restoration mechanism for this situation. A further application is a fresh application, founded upon a new and fully compliant investment. Article 12(1) requires the absence of any obstacle in terms of national security or public order, and Article 10(1) provides that the fulfilment of the conditions confers no absolute right to citizenship.

Do the 2024 valuation circulars apply to a citizenship granted before them?

The circulars govern how applications are made and apply from their own commencement dates in March and December 2024. Articles 31 and 40 of the Law No. 5901, however, have been in force since 2009 and are not subject to a limitation period.

Can the decision be challenged?

The general position under Turkish law is that adverse administrative decisions may be challenged before the administrative courts. Actions against Presidential decisions are heard by the Council of State at first instance under Article 24(1)(a) of the Law No. 2575, subject to strict time limits. Whether a challenge is available in a given case depends upon the ground relied upon and upon the contents of the file.

Sources and References

Primary

• Ministry of Interior, press statement of 4 August 2026 on the false valuation/expertise operation and irregular citizenship transactions (icisleri.gov.tr)
• Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 (Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu), Articles 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31, 32, 33, 40, 43 (mevzuat.gov.tr)
• Implementing Regulation on the Application of the Turkish Citizenship Law, Council of Ministers Decision No. 2010/139, RG 06.04.2010 No. 27544, Articles 20, 57, 58, 66, 86 (mevzuat.gov.tr)
• General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre, Circular 2024/2 (1 March 2024, in force 4 March 2024) (tkgm.gov.tr)
• General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre, Circular 2024/4 as amended 9 December 2024, and its Guide (tkgm.gov.tr)
• Law No. 2575 on the Council of State, Article 24(1)(a) (mevzuat.gov.tr)
• Advocacy Law No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu) (mevzuat.gov.tr)
• Council of State, 10th Chamber: E. 2023/4836, K. 2024/6781, 24.12.2024 · E. 2022/7637, K. 2025/3313, 26.06.2025 · E. 2022/194, K. 2025/5781, 04.12.2025 · E. 2020/3336, K. 2024/3481, 30.09.2024