Summary:
After the enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor against the debtor through the seizure of foreign currency notes, the complaining third party bank representative, in the enforcement proceedings initiated against the debtor; 73 of the Banking Law on the request of the debtor’s account movements from the customer bank. it is understood that within the scope of the article, the enforcement directorate decided to accept the complaint by requesting the cancellation of the guarantees sent under the claim that the customer is a secret.
367 of the Second. in accordance with the article, it is regulated that all the information that the Enforcement or Bankruptcy offices will request about the debtor’s assets is real, and every person who has a decision about it is obliged to provide it immediately and deliver the asset to these departments when requested.
73 Of the Banking Law. according to the article; “The chairman and members of the board of directors and staff of the institution, the chairman and staff of the board of directors of the fund, the chairman and staff of the fund may not disclose information about the fund that they have learned during their duties, banks and their subsidiaries, subsidiaries, joint ventures and secrets belonging to this Law and the customers they authorize to anyone else and may not use them for the benefit of themselves or others in accordance with special laws. Persons and organizations from which the organization receives external support services, as well as their employees, are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues after leaving office.”
These limitations in the law prevent bank members and other officials from disclosing secrets belonging to banks and their customers that they have learned about due to their qualifications at their own discretion and arbitrarily, and affect the sanction because the restriction not included in this article does not cover the audit.
TC
Supreme
law office
Number: 2015/33017
Decision No:2016/10595
K. Date:11.4.2016
COURT : Hanak Court of First Instance
PLAINTIFF : Third Party : Yapı Ve Kredi Bank A.Sh.
Upon the written request of the creditor with the above date and number, within hours following the court’s decision, the files related to this audit work were appealed and sent to the apartment from the scene, and the audit report was prepared and kept by the judge for filing a lawsuit, after reading and reviewing all the documents in the file, as a result of discussing the nature of the work:
After the enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor against the debtor through the seizure of foreign currency notes, the complaining third party bank representative, in the enforcement proceedings initiated against the debtor; 73 of the Banking Law on the request of the debtor’s account movements from the customer bank. it is understood that within the scope of the article, the enforcement directorate decided to accept the complaint by requesting the cancellation of the guarantees sent under the claim that the customer is a secret.
367 of the Second. in accordance with the article, it is arranged that all the information that the Enforcement or Bankruptcy offices will request about the debtor’s existence is real, and every person who has a decision about it is obliged to provide it immediately and deliver the asset to these departments when requested.
73 Of the Banking Law. according to the article; “The chairman and members of the board of directors and staff of the institution, the chairman and staff of the board of directors of the fund, the chairman and staff of the fund may not disclose information about the fund that they have learned during their duties, banks and their subsidiaries, subsidiaries, joint ventures and secrets belonging to this Law and the customers they authorize to anyone else and may not use them for the benefit of themselves or others in accordance with special laws. Persons and organizations from which the organization receives external support services, as well as their employees, are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues after leaving office.”
These limitations in the law prevent bank members and other officials from disclosing secrets belonging to banks and their customers that they have learned about due to their qualifications at their own discretion and arbitrarily, and affect the sanction because the restriction not included in this article does not cover the audit.
In this case, while the court should decide on the rejection of the complainant’s bank’s request, it is wrong to make a provision for its acceptance with a written justification.
CONCLUSION :
The decision of the court regarding the acceptance of the creditor’s objections for the reasons written above, 366 of the OIC. with article 428 of the IIK. in accordance with the provisions of the article (ON DISRUPTION), it was decided unanimously on 11.04.2016 to refund the fee received in advance upon request, provided that the way for correcting the decision is open within 10 days from the notification of the decision.