Does The Absence Of Bank Officials’ Signatures On The Bank Account Passbooks Render The Passbooks Invalid?

Does The Absence Of Bank Officials’ Signatures On The Bank Account Passbooks Render The Passbooks Invalid?

A passbook can be defined, in its simplest form, as a book issued to account holders at a bank, in which deposits and withdrawals are recorded and which serves as proof of the existence of a deposit at the bank. In accordance with Article 4/6 of the Regulation on Procedures and Principles Regarding the Acceptance, Withdrawal, and Expiration of Deposits, Participation Funds, Deposits, and Receivables “Credit institutions are obligated to provide the account statement they issue to the account holder in either printed or electronic format in accordance with the account holder’s preference, or to prove that the account holder has refused to accept the account statement.” In other words, the issuance of the relevant account statement by the bank serves as evidence that the customer has a deposit at the bank in question. For an account statement to be issued by a bank, it must be signed by persons authorized to represent the bank within the framework of the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 and the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102.

The main issue in disputes regarding account statements from the past to the present is whether account statements that do not bear the signatures of bank authorized signatories can be used as evidence. In such disputes, banks have objected to the attribution of documents that do not bear the signatures of bank employees to the bank, in accordance with the provisions on representation. On the other side of the dispute, we have argued that even if the bank employee’s signature is not present on the account statement, the existence of the deposit in the bank records and the consistency between the account statement records without signatures and these records should be considered a binding element.

In this study, I will examine the question, “Can a bank account statement that does not bear the signatures of bank officials be used against the bank in a legal dispute?” in three stages:

• Bank Account Statements Bearing the Signatures of Bank Officials:

The Supreme Court has ruled that account ledgers bearing the signatures of bank signature authorities constitute sufficient evidence that the customer has an account at the relevant bank.

“…the deposit account book is a valid document, and the Supreme Court has ruled that bank account books bearing the signatures of the bank’s authorized personnel are considered receipts, and since the account book in the customer’s possession was signed by bank personnel who represent and bind the bank, the account book is binding on the bank…”[1]

• Account Passbooks Not Bearing the Signatures of Bank Authorized Signatories:

The Supreme Court of Appeals held that the bank cannot be held liable for account passbooks not bearing the signatures of bank authorized signatories, as such passbooks cannot serve as evidence of bank deposits.[2] For example, in one decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a bank account statement bearing the signatures of the bank’s signatories is binding on the bank, even if the relevant deposit cannot be found in the bank’s records[3]; in another decision, it ruled that a bank account statement that does not bear the signature of the authorized signatory cannot constitute sufficient evidence[4].

In the 1990s, the Supreme Court of Appeals issued different decisions within short periods of time (such as one week), which caused problems in terms of legal unity. In 1998, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that “The signatures of the bank’s authorized persons were not found on the deposit account book, but it was determined that the entries in the book belonged to the bank’s assistant manager (B). Banks, as institutions of trust, are liable to their depositors for the actions and decisions of persons authorized to represent them in banking matters, in accordance with the provisions of Article 449 of the Turkish Civil Code (TBK) and the subsequent articles.” However, banks incur debt with the signatures of two persons, and the deputy manager is not generally a commercial representative. In this case, the bank will be liable for the damage caused to the customer by the deputy manager in accordance with Article 116 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, “due to the act of the assistant person.”[5]

The Court of Cassation also supported this decision of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation in another decision: “…since the bank wallets constitute a deposit contract relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant bank, the bank is liable to the plaintiff for the aforementioned wallets. This is because the signature of the defendant bank employee O. M. on the wallet has, in accordance with Article 100 of the Turkish Civil Code, imposed liability on the bank for the acts of its agents.”[6]

In light of these two decisions, even if the signatures of the bank’s authorized signatories are not present on the account wallet, if the signature or writing of a bank employee who does not have signature authority is found on the wallet, the bank may be held liable under the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

• Even if the signature of a bank employee is not present on the account statement, if the customer has a deposit with the bank:

A judgment cannot be rendered solely on the grounds that there is no signature.

The Court of Cassation has emphasized that the burden of proof is reversed due to the existence of banks’ obligation to return deposits under the Banking Law, which requires the examination of bank records, and that bank records must be examined: “The case concerns a claim arising from a banking transaction.

Banks are obligated to return the funds deposited with them to the depositors upon request or at a specified maturity date, either in kind or in equivalent value (Article 10/4 of the Banking Law No. 4389, as amended by Law No. 4491, and Article 61 of the Banking Law No. 5411). According to this definition, a deposit contract is a unique contract that possesses the characteristics of both a loan agreement and an unlawful deposit agreement. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 306 and 307 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 818 (Articles 386 and 387 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 6098), the borrower is obligated to return the loaned amount, along with interest if agreed upon, at the end of the contract.

In this situation, although a ruling was made in accordance with the expert report adopted, as accepted by the court, since the money deposited by the plaintiff to the defendant bank branch is still in the possession of the defendant bank and the defendant has failed to prove that the deposit was paid to the plaintiff, the judgment rendered in writing by reversing the burden of proof through an erroneous assessment is incorrect and must be reversed.[7]

Finally, in light of these three headings, my opinion on the admissibility of bank account passbooks that do not bear the signatures of authorized signatories as evidence is as follows:

• Account passbooks must bear the signatures of authorized bank signatories because they are mandatory documents issued by banks after the opening of deposit accounts.
• If the bank account book does not bear the signature of the bank’s authorized signatory but contains any writing by a bank employee and it is determined that such writing belongs to the relevant bank’s employee, the bank, as a prudent merchant, may be held liable under the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
• A bank account statement that does not bear the signature or any mark (letter, number, etc.) of a bank employee is not sufficient proof that the customer does not have a deposit at the bank. During litigation, the absence of a signature alone is not sufficient for a ruling; the bank records must also be examined. However, if the bank records are examined and it is determined that no deposit belonging to the customer exists, it may be established that the relevant account statement does not give rise to the bank’s liability.

Year: 2025

Application: Does The Absence Of Bank Officials’ Signatures On The Bank Account Passbooks Render The Passbooks Invalid?

Lawyers: Mehmet Said Sarıbaş & Bilal Akbaba

E-mail: info@saribasakbaba.av.tr

Website: saribasakbaba.av.tr

[1] 11. HD. E. 2015/11837 K. 2016/5635

[2] 19. HD. E.1994/7400, K.1994/10259

[3] 19. HD. E. 1994/1038 K. 1994/9954

[4] 19. HD. E. 1994/3608 K. 1994/10257

[5] HGK, E.1998/19-438, K.1998/400

[6] 11. HD. E. 2008/3917 K. 2010/319

[7] 11. HD., E. 2016/1265 K. 2016/9383

REFERENCES

1 – 5411 sayılı Bankacılık Kanunu m.61

2 – Mevduat ve Katılım Fonunun Kabulüne, Çekilmesine ve Zamanaşımına Uğrayan Mevduat, Katılım Fonu, Emanet ve Alacaklara ilişkin Usul ve Esaslar Hakkında Yönetmelik m.4/6

3 – Seza Reisoğlu, Bankacılık Kanunu Şerhi s.1181

4 – Sair Yargıtay Kararları