Enpara Account Block Not Removed After Debt Payment
I am a customer of Enpara Bank A.Ş. and I hold a personal demand deposit account. On my Enpara demand deposit account, an amount of ₺11,530.00 was blocked on 26 June by İstanbul Anadolu 1st Enforcement Office. The related debt was fully paid, the release letter reached the bank and the block was removed. However, the bank then stated that due to an e-seizure letter from Ankara Enforcement Office dated 8 July, my ₺11,530.00 is now kept under restriction for the Ankara file, even though on 8 July, at the moment this e-seizure reached the bank, the available balance in my account was ₺0. According to the established case law of the Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK) (File No: 2012/139, Decision No: 2012/624), if at the time the e-seizure reaches the bank there is no money in the account or the money is already tied to another file, the seizure becomes void. After the funds are released from the previous restriction, a new e-seizure request is required; an automatic new block cannot be imposed without such a new request. Since the seizure letter dated 8 July became void at the moment it reached the bank, I consider the ongoing block on ₺11,530.00 in my Enpara demand deposit account to be unlawful. I request that this unlawful block on the amount of ₺11,530.00 be immediately removed and that my funds be made fully available to me without any further delay.
They still aren't giving any results or answers; what are you examining so much, everything is out in the open.
The bank, as is known, informs the enforcement office that, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and established Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay) rulings (Yargıtay 12 HD 22.10.2004, file no. 17928/22583 and Yargıtay 12 HD 15.06.2010, 2010/2746 e., 2010/15309 k.), the liability of the third party under a seizure notice and seizure order is limited to the situation existing at the date the seizure notice is served to him, and it is not possible for the third party to be aware of, nor to enforce, a right that may arise in the future. For these reasons, we regret to inform you that your request to apply seizure to existing and future rights and receivables cannot be accepted, and we hereby submit this information to you.
And it's still being reviewed—how are they still examining what they themselves said?
Enpara Bank A.Ş. Solution Center and Legal Department, I am a customer of your bank with number 4464859. On my account, a balance of TRY 11,530.00 was blocked on June 26 by the Istanbul Anadolu 1 Enforcement Office. This debt has been fully paid by me and the release (fek) letter was sent to your bank, resulting in the restriction being lifted. However, your customer service states that despite the initial block being removed, my TRY 11,530.00 is now being restricted again on the basis of an e‑attachment notice (2026/75992) issued by the Ankara Bank Claims Enforcement Office, which entered the system on July 8, 2026. This action by your bank is clearly contrary to the official letter drafted by your own head office, which I have attached, and to established law. Specifically, the official letter attached, sent by your head office to the relevant enforcement office on 08/07/2026, contains the following wording verbatim: “... The liability is limited to the situation existing on the date the attachment notice was served, and a right that may arise in the future or is likely to arise cannot be known by a third party and cannot be attached. For these reasons, we regret to inform you that your request to attach future rights and claims cannot be accepted, and we submit this for your information.” In the official response your bank sent to the enforcement office, you acknowledge that on July 8 there is a note from the Anadolu 1 Enforcement Office on the funds, that the Ankara case could only be applied after this attachment (when the balance is zero), and that, according to Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay) rulings, this attachment cannot be retroactively effective for amounts that may become free in the future. Your own legal justification admits this. Continuing to keep my money blocked based on the July 8 e‑attachment notice, which you have officially rejected, is plainly unlawful. According to the official memorandum response from your bank that I have attached, the Ankara attachment notice dated July 8 became null and void the moment it was received. I therefore demand the immediate removal of the block on the TRY 11,530.00 held in my account, which is contrary to your legal statements and Yargıtay jurisprudence. Otherwise, I hereby notify you that I will file a complaint with the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BDDK) using your attached official letter as evidence, claim compensation for the damages caused by the unlawful block, and initiate a lawsuit before the Ankara Enforcement and Commercial Court to lift the block, and I will hold your bank liable for all litigation, court fees and attorney costs.
Hello, We reviewed our customer's request and provided written information to the email address registered with Enpara on 11/09/2026. If you wish, you can always share your feedback with us through the Solution Center step located at the bottom of the home screen of our mobile branch.
