Türkiye’nin Fon Krizi II: Hukukun Eşitlik Testi
Turkey's investment fund crisis has moved beyond a dispute over liquidity, portfolio valuation and regulatory oversight. Following decisions by the Capital Markets Board to liquidate 131 funds affecting 455,758 individual investors, the investigation expanded rapidly and began to include people with direct or family ties to senior figures in the governing Justice and Development Party. This analysis does not treat political proximity as evidence of wrongdoing, nor does it assume that different judicial measures automatically constitute preferential treatment. Instead, it examines a narrower institutional question: when politically connected individuals enter the same investigation, are comparable legal standards applied in a way that can be publicly understood? Former AK Party deputy chair Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya resigned from her political duties after allegations concerning share transactions and later became subject, together with her husband, to an asset-freezing request. In a separate case, an asset measure involving Mustafa Yazıcı, son of senior AK Party official Hayati Yazıcı, was lifted after his statement and an assessment of other evidence, while a travel restriction remained in place. The distinction matters. Equality before the law does not require identical decisions where evidence and legal circumstances differ. It requires consistent criteria for people in comparable legal positions. Turkey's fund investigation will therefore be judged not only by the number of arrests or assets frozen, but by whether differences in treatment can be explained through transparent, legally relevant reasons.