You transferred money to another person in Turkey but never signed a loan agreement or obtained a promissory note.
You have the bank transfer and perhaps several WhatsApp messages. Is that enough to recover the money?
Possibly — but the transfer itself does not necessarily establish that the payment was a loan.
Turkish evidence law looks at why the money was transferred, what the parties wrote to each other, the amount and date of the transaction and whether electronic communications can reliably be attributed to the alleged debtor.
Does the absence of a promissory note prevent a claim?
No.
A person does not lose a claim merely because no Turkish senet or negotiable promissory note was signed.
However, Turkish civil procedure imposes documentary-evidence requirements for legal transactions exceeding an annually adjusted monetary threshold.
For 2026, the threshold under Articles 200 and 201 of the Code of Civil Procedure is TRY 41,000. Importantly, the applicable limit is determined by the date on which the legal transaction was made. A lawsuit filed in 2026 does not automatically mean that the 2026 threshold governs an older transaction.
The date of the alleged loan can therefore be important before the available evidence is even assessed.
Is a bank transfer proof that the money was a loan?
Not necessarily.
A bank statement clearly proves that money moved from one account to another.
It may not, by itself, prove why the money was transferred.
The Turkish Court of Cassation illustrated this distinction in a recent decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/5639, K. 2026/2549.
The transfers in that dispute did not contain an explanation stating that the money was a loan. The Court upheld the conclusion that the person who transferred the money still had to prove that the payment had been made as a repayable loan.
This distinction is critical.
“I transferred TRY 100,000 to this person” is a different proposition from “I lent this person TRY 100,000 and the money had to be repaid.”
What if the transfer description says “loan”?
That can materially strengthen the evidentiary position.
In its decision E. 2026/531, K. 2026/2778 dated 5 May 2026, the 3rd Civil Chamber considered bank transfers whose descriptions expressly stated “Borç Verilmesi”, meaning that the funds were being provided as a loan.
The courts treated this wording as evidence that the transfers were loans. The burden then fell on the recipient, who claimed that the transfers had another purpose, to establish that assertion.
A clear transfer description can therefore make a substantial difference.
Expressions accurately identifying the payment as a loan or repayable advance may later be much more useful than a transfer with no description at all.
The entire relationship between the parties will still be considered; a transfer description is not an automatic guarantee of success.
Can WhatsApp messages be evidence in a Turkish court?
Yes.
Article 199 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure expressly treats electronic data capable of proving disputed facts as documents.
WhatsApp conversations, text messages and emails can therefore have evidentiary value.
Suppose the recipient later writes:
“I will pay you next month.”
“I still owe you the remaining amount.”
“I cannot repay all of it this month, so I will send it in two installments.”
Statements of this kind may help establish not merely that money was transferred but that the recipient recognized a repayment obligation.
What is a “beginning of evidence”?
This concept is particularly important in Turkish civil procedure.
Article 202 allows witnesses to be heard in a transaction that would normally require documentary proof where there is a delil başlangıcı, commonly translated as a beginning of evidence.
The document does not need to prove the entire transaction. It must make the alleged transaction plausible and must originate from the person against whom it is relied upon, or that person’s representative.
Electronic communications can sometimes satisfy this requirement.
In Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber decision E. 2026/357, K. 2026/2931, bank records and WhatsApp communications were considered capable of constituting a beginning of evidence. The existence of that evidence meant that witness testimony also had to be considered.
Are WhatsApp screenshots always enough?
No.
Authenticity can become decisive.
A screenshot may look convincing, but the opposing party can dispute whether the conversation is complete, whether the account or number belonged to them or whether the image was altered.
A recent decision demonstrates the problem.
In E. 2025/5698, K. 2026/2691, the 3rd Civil Chamber upheld a decision in which certain WhatsApp screenshots were not accepted as a sufficient beginning of evidence because the disputed messages could not be verified against the material located on the submitted devices and the opposing party denied them.
The practical lesson is straightforward: do not preserve only cropped screenshots where the underlying dispute is significant.
Keeping the original phone, full conversation history, dates, contact information and backups may become important if authenticity is challenged.
Can illegally obtained messages be used?
How the evidence was obtained matters.
Article 189(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that unlawfully obtained evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the court to prove a fact.
Keeping a conversation in which you personally participated is therefore very different from unlawfully accessing another person’s device or private account to obtain their communications.
The collection of evidence should itself remain lawful.
Can witnesses prove a private loan?
Sometimes, but not always.
The answer depends on the amount and date of the transaction and whether one of the statutory exceptions to the documentary-evidence requirement applies.
Where there is a qualifying beginning of evidence under Article 202, witness testimony may become available even though the underlying transaction would otherwise require documentary proof.
Article 203 also provides several exceptions, including certain transactions between close family members.
It is therefore inaccurate to say either that “witnesses can never prove a loan without a written contract” or that “two witnesses are enough to prove any loan.”
How should a private loan be documented?
Where possible, the transaction should be documented when the money is provided rather than after a dispute begins.
A written agreement identifying the amount, repayment obligation and repayment date provides considerably greater clarity.
The bank transfer description should accurately reflect the purpose of the payment.
Relevant messages and emails should also be preserved in their original form rather than only as selected screenshots.
If repayments are made in installments, describing which loan or installment each payment concerns can also prevent later disputes.
The key question is not simply whether money was transferred
An undocumented-loan case frequently turns on the legal reason behind the transfer.
A bank record may establish movement of funds. Messages may establish an acknowledgement of debt. A clear transfer description may identify the payment as a loan. Witness testimony may become admissible when supported by a qualifying beginning of evidence.
The court considers these pieces together.
For that reason, the practical question is not merely “Do I have a bank receipt?” but rather “What does the complete evidentiary record show about why the money was transferred and whether repayment was required?”
Legal basis: Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Articles 189, 199, 200, 202 and 203; Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber E. 2026/531, K. 2026/2778; E. 2025/5639, K. 2026/2549; E. 2026/357, K. 2026/2931; E. 2025/5698, K. 2026/2691.
This article provides general information on Turkish law. The date and amount of the transaction, the relationship between the parties and the available evidence may materially affect the analysis.