The obligation depends on the nature of the activity, not the size of the company. The list runs from payment institutions to jewellers, from cargo companies to real estate agents. Not seeing yourself on the list does not mean that view will be accepted at inspection.

No. The threshold is suspicion, not certainty. The existence of a matter giving rise to suspicion makes reporting mandatory. Attempted but uncompleted transactions are also covered.

Establish the source of the restriction. The path differs entirely depending on whether it stems from the bank's own risk policy, a MASAK request or a judicial decision. A document trail can rarely be reconstructed after the fact.

No. Controlled foreign company and place-of-management assessments remain in play. If management is found to be carried out from Türkiye in practice, the entity may be treated as a full taxpayer there.

Yes. A separate liability and return regime applies to non-resident providers supplying electronic services to final consumers in Türkiye; it does not require setting up a company.

As a general rule, no. Each country has separate immigration routes and the structure must be built after that route is chosen. Setting up a company first and looking for a route afterwards usually leads nowhere.

What matters is whether the business model falls within one of the service definitions in the legislation. If it does and the activity is carried out without authorisation, it creates criminal liability alongside administrative sanctions; obtaining a written scope opinion beforehand is the least costly step.

It depends on the obliged party group and scale. The appointee must have sufficient authority, budget and a direct reporting line within the organisation; an appointment without authority protects neither the institution nor the individual at inspection.

The line between a bank's freedom to end a relationship and abuse of right depends on the facts. The first step is to request the reasoning and underlying risk assessment; claims filed without establishing a correspondence trail usually fail.

Service providers are treated as obliged parties for anti-money-laundering purposes; segregation of client assets, custody arrangements and record-keeping infrastructure are each examined separately at inspection.