From Competition Law To Criminal Exposure: Raids On Türkiye’s Poultry Sector Signal A Potential New Enforcement Era

June 2026 – A recent wave of enforcement activity in the Turkish poultry sector during June 2026 raises an important question: whether conduct traditionally addressed under competition law can now trigger criminal investigations?

Following a comprehensive investigation, the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) imposed administrative monetary fines on several undertakings operating in the poultry market for allegedly exchanging competitively sensitive information. Subsequently, the same factual background became the basis of criminal proceedings initiated by public prosecutors in 12 cities across Türkiye, signalling a notable convergence between administrative and criminal enforcement frameworks. For boardrooms, legal counsels, and compliance officers, the message is clear: antitrust compliance is no longer limited to corporate financial risk—it is now a matter of personal liberty.

The Antitrust Aspect: What the TCA Found?

The TCA recently concluded an investigation into the Turkish poultry sector, which had been placed under close scrutiny at the end of 2025.¹ According to the assessment of the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”), this conduct resulted in a restriction of competition in the relevant market. On this basis, the Board imposed administrative fines totalling TRY 2.7 billion (approx. EUR 50 million) on eight undertakings. In parallel, several parties opted for settlement, bringing the overall administrative fine to TRY 3.7 billion (approx. EUR 69.4 million).

Crucially, the Board did not characterise the infringement as a cartel. Its assessment of collusion rested on findings involving exchange of competitively sensitive data, including on:

• current and future pricing strategies, discount rates, and raw material costs;
• stock levels, daily slaughter volumes, and capacity expansions;
• product portfolios and sales strategies regarding chain markets and large wholesalers.

A pivotal element of the Board’s decision was the extensive reliance on a detailed economic analysis conducted within the scope of the investigation. Alongside the official investigation notice, the TCA conducted a detailed economic analysis of the profitability rates of the parties involved. The investigated undertakings also relied extensively on economic evidence, submitting their own analyses in their defence, underscoring the exceptional importance attributed to economic assessments in this case.

In addition to fines, the TCA imposed strict behavioural remedies. The undertakings must now implement price list updates immediately upon notifying buyers and cease forward-looking price list practices. This close monitoring of pricing behaviour and commercial alignment appears to have provided the factual background for subsequent criminal scrutiny.

The Criminal Dimension: Subsequent Judicial Proceedings

Following the TCA’s investigation into the poultry sector, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (“Public Prosecutor’s Office”) launched a parallel criminal investigation across 12 cities in Türkiye. Within the scope of this probe, detention measures were imposed on 29 individuals, including senior corporate executives, and supervisory trustees were appointed over 13 companies operating in the sector. While the court released the individuals subject to judicial control measures and subsequently revoked the supervisory trustee appointments following recent developments, the initial enforcement actions sent shockwaves through the market.

Official statements from the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicate that the investigation extends beyond administrative competition law. The Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated the investigation following public complaints and reports concerning increases in poultry prices, consumer access to essential food products, and overall price stability. The investigation primarily focused on pricing practices within the sector, allegations of unjustified price hikes, and conduct allegedly affecting market equilibrium.

The prosecutors are subsequently assessing the relevant conduct under the Turkish Criminal Code (“TCC”), in particular with regard to offences relating to the establishment, management, or membership of a criminal organisation (Article 220), price manipulation (Article 237), and money laundering (Article 282).

Among the offences subject to the investigation, price manipulation stands out as particularly significant. This is because the offence is directly linked to allegations concerning price coordination and pricing practices that are also being examined under competition law. In fact, the criminal investigation itself was initiated in response to complaints regarding increases in poultry prices. Accordingly, one of the key legal issues in the investigation is whether the conduct assessed within the scope of the competition law investigation may also give rise to criminal liability and satisfy the constituent elements of the offence of price manipulation under Article 237 of the TCC.

Another significant issue in the context of this investigation concerns the scope of the phrase “other fraudulent means” under Article 237 of the TCC. If the authorities seek to characterise cartel conduct or anticompetitive information exchange as falling within this definition, the question arises as to under what circumstances a competition law infringement can also constitute a criminal offence. In this regard, one of the key legal issues is whether cartel conduct or anticompetitive information exchange alone is sufficient to satisfy the elements of the offence, or whether additional elements beyond a competition law violation are required to establish criminal liability.

Supervisory Trustee Measure: A Closer Look

In a notable procedural move, the court appointed supervisory trustees to 13 companies pursuant to Article 133 of the Criminal Procedure Law. While the court decision did not suspend commercial activities or seize assets, it required the companies’ management bodies to obtain explicit approval from the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduatı Sigorta Fonu)—acting as the supervisory trustee—for all decisions and transactions.

Although the Public Prosecutor’s Office explicitly emphasised that the measure did not constitute a corporate seizure or an interruption of daily operations, this direct intervention into corporate governance structures immediately captured the attention of the wider business community. Even though the court later revoked these supervisory trustee decisions, the application of such criminal procedural measures to an investigation arising from competition law issues sets a critical precedent.

Why This Case May Redefine Enforcement Risk?

This dual-track enforcement paradigm introduces several legal challenges that undertakings must carefully evaluate:

• Potential expansion to other sensitive sectors: While the case arises from the food sector—where the poultry sector, in particular, had already been subject to the Board’s scrutiny multiple times—similar dual administrative and criminal enforcement could extend to other price-sensitive industries such as labour markets (e.g., wage-fixing) and the FMCG and retail sectors, particularly where consumer pricing is affected.
• Access to intrusive criminal investigative tools: Criminal proceedings under Articles 220 and 282 of the TCC enable more intrusive investigative measures than standard antitrust dawn raids, including wiretapping, surveillance, and tracking of individuals at a pre-enforcement stage.

Leniency and settlement dilemma: In the absence of a cross-enforcement “safe harbour”, leniency applicants who blow the whistle on cartels to obtain immunity from antitrust fines may risk opening the door to a criminal procedure. This significantly weakens the existing incentive structure for self-reporting. Similarly, the settlement procedure—where investigated parties acknowledge the violation in exchange for a reduction in the fine—loses its appeal. Without a cross-enforcement safe harbour, undertakings will be highly hesitant to settle with the Board, as acknowledging a competition law infringement could inadvertently serve as an admission of guilt in parallel criminal proceedings. Consequently, parties may choose to skip the settlement process altogether and defend themselves until the end, rendering the expected efficiencies in procedural economy entirely void.

• Operational impact of judicial trustees: The appointment of supervisory trustees over 13 companies illustrates that criminal procedure measures may affect corporate governance at an early stage. Although the trustees did not displace management and their mandates were later revoked, the case highlights broader operational and reputational risks beyond administrative fines.

Conclusion: A One-Off Case or a Structural Shift?

The Turkish poultry sector investigation goes beyond significant competition law enforcement. It highlights an emerging structural question about the boundaries between administrative antitrust enforcement and criminal law intervention. If this dual-track enforcement model becomes more frequent, companies may need to reassess their compliance frameworks beyond competition law alone, incorporating broader criminal law risk assessments into their internal governance and crisis response strategies. Ultimately, the key question is whether this case remains an isolated foray into traditional antitrust areas by the criminal authorities—or marks the beginning of a more integrated enforcement paradigm in Türkiye.

Footnote

1. TCA’s decision on poultry sector dated 18.09.2025 and numbered 25-35/837-492.