Thoughts on the Concepts of Acting ‘Knowingly’ and ‘Deliberately’ to the Detriment of the Debtor in Terms of Raising Personal Defenses in Negotiable Instruments, and on the Proof That the Holder Deliberately Act ed to the Debtor’s Detriment
This study examines the conceptual and practical differences between the terms “knowingly” and “deliberately” acting to the detriment of the debtor, which determine whether personal defenses can be raised against the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC). Articles 659 and 825 of the TCC allow such defenses for order instruments if the holder knowingly acted to the debtor’s detriment. However, Article 687 permits personal defenses only if the holder of a bills of exchange deliberately acted with intent to harm the debtor. Unlike source legal systems, the Turkish legislator consciously adopted two distinct concepts for these different types of instruments. This distinction has significant implications in practice, as it affects when a debtor may assert personal defenses. The first part of the study explores the difference in levels of awareness and intent between the two concepts. The second part addresses how a debtor may prove that the holder acted with intent tantamount to willful misconduct—a requirement that imposes a heavy evidentiary burden. The study also examines Turkish Court of Cassation decisions in which personal or commercial ties between the holder and the endorser are used to infer bad faith. Finally, drawing a parallel to the actio pauliana provisions under the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law, the study discusses whether evidentiary presumptions found there can be applied by analogy to Article 687 TCC. The analysis aims to offer practical solutions for easing the debtor’s burden of proof and ensuring the effective application of personal defenses.
Kambiyo Senetlerinde Şahsî Def’ilerin İleri Sürülmesi Bakımından “Bilerek” ve “Bile Bile” Borçlunun Zararına Hareket Etme Kavramları ile Hamilin Bile Bile Borçlu Zararına Hareket Ettiğinin İspatına İlişkin Düşünceler
Bu çalışma, Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nda şahsî def’ilerin senet hamiline karşı ileri sürülebilmesi için aranan “bilerek” ve “bile bile” borçlunun zararına hareket etme şartlarının kavramsal ve uygulamaya yönelik farklarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun 659. ve 825. maddelerine göre hamiline ve emre yazılı senedin hamili, bilerek borçlunun zararına hareket ettiği hallerde şahsî def’iler ileri sürülebilmektedir. Kambiyo senetleri özelinde ise Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun 687. maddesine göre bu hak yalnızca hamilin bile bile borçlunun zararına hareket etmesi şartına bağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, kanun koyucuyu mehaz hukuk sistemlerinden farklı olarak hamiline/emre yazılı senetler ve kambiyo senetleri bakımından iki farklı kavram kullanmaya yönlendiren sebepler irdelenmiştir. Zira kanun koyucu tarafından farklı senet türleri için farklı kavramlar kullanılmış olması, uygulamada borçlunun hangi şartlar altında şahsî def’ilerini hamile karşı ileri sürebileceği konusunda önemli bir ayrım yaratmaktadır. Çalışmanın ilk bölümünde bu iki kavramın içerdiği bilinç ve saik düzeyleri açıklığa kavuşturulmuş, ikinci bölümde ise borçlunun hamilin kast derecesindeki iradesini nasıl ispat edebileceği değerlendirilmiştir. Yargıtay içtihatlarında hamil ile ciranta arasındaki yakınlık ilişkilerinden hareketle kötüniyet varsayımının nasıl temellendirildiği analiz edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda bile bile borçlunun zararına hareket etme kavramının somutlaştırılmasına ilişkin olarak İcra ve İflas Kanunu’ndaki tasarrufun iptali davasına ilişkin hükümlerle benzerlik kurulmuş, buradaki ispatı kolaylaştırıcı karinelerin Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun 687. maddesi bakımından kıyasen uygulanabilirliği tartışılmıştır. Bu analiz, uygulamada borçlunun ispat yükünü hafifletecek ve şahsî def’ilerin etkin şekilde ileri sürülebilmesini sağlayacak yöntemlerin tartışılmasına katkı sunmaktadır.
In this study, the conditions under which the debtor can raise personal defences against the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) are examined. Articles 659 and 825 of the TCC stipulate that in commercial bills other than those written to the order of a specific person, personal defences can only be raised if the holder knowingly acts to the detriment of the debtor. Similarly, Article 687 of the TCC specifies that a debtor can only raise a personal defence in a letter of exchange if the holder knowingly acts to the detriment of the debtor. The Regulation also applies to promissory notes and checks.
In this context, there is a difference between the concepts of “knowingly acting to the detriment of the debtor” and “deliberately acting to the detriment of the debtor.” The TCC consciously uses these two distinct concepts for different types of negotiable instruments. The aim of this study is to clarify the difference between these two concepts and examine the conditions necessary for a debtor to raise personal defence against the holder using negotiable instruments.
According to Articles 659 and 825 of the TCC, a holder who acquires a commercial bill free from personal defences, they must not knowingly act to the detriment of the debtor. In this case, the holder’s good faith is irrelevant. It is sufficient for the debtor to claim that the holder knew or could have known about the harm to the debtor when acquiring the bill.
In the case of negotiable instruments, Article 687 of the TCC requires the holder to deliberately act at the detriment of the debtor to be able to raise personal defences. This requires the holder not only to be aware of the existence of the personal defence but also to acquire the instrument with the intent to harm the debtor. Although there is no consensus in the doctrine on this issue, the predominant view is that the holder must have known about the personal defence and acquired the instrument with the intent to prevent it.
How a debtor can prove that the holder deliberately acted to his/her own benefit in a negotiable instrument is also problematic. For a debtor to raise a personal defence against the holder, he/she must prove that the holder acquired the instrument deliberately acting to his/her detriment. This presents a significant challenge in terms of the burden of proof. Some authors in the doctrine argue that it is sufficient for the debtor to prove that the holder was aware of the personal defence. However, this approach eliminates the important difference between commercial bills and negotiable instruments in terms of the conditions for raising personal defence against the holder. Despite the difficulties in proving this, the law-established distinction must be maintained.
Negotiable instruments are written to order and change hands through endorsement and delivery of possession. In negotiable instruments written to order, personal defences generally cannot be raised by the new holder during the transfer. However, if the holder acquires the instrument deliberately acting to the detriment of the debtor, these defences can be raised (TCC Art. 867/1). This provision allows the debtor to defend himself against a holder who has acquired the instrument through a valid transaction.
There are some similarities between the purpose of this provision and the purpose of an action for annulment of a transaction under Article 277 of the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law. The fundamental principle underlying an annulment action is to prevent individuals who are parties to a transaction from causing harm to a creditor. In an action for annulment, the creditor must prove that the debtor’s transactions with third parties have harmed them. To overcome this difficulty, the court established certain presumptions in Article 280 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law. For instance, it is presumed that third parties with close family relationships with the debtor are aware of the debtor’s insolvency and intent to harm the creditor by making a transaction with the debtor that results in a decrease in their assets.
In the practice of the Court of Cassation, it is accepted that if there is a specific close relationship between the holder and the endorser, the holder is considered to be acting in “bad faith”. For example, in situations involving a spouse, friendship, or parent-child relationship, it can be presumed that the holder deliberately acted to the detriment of the debtor. Additionally, in terms of endorsements made between companies, it is accepted that if an organic connection between the endorser and the holder, the holder deliberately acted to the detriment of the debtor.
The Court of Cassation’s case law of such presumptions provides ease of proof for debtors, but the lack of concrete criteria in the decisions is open to criticism. The analogous application of the presumptions stipulated in Article 280 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law can alleviate the heavy burden of proof on the debtor and enhance legal predictability. Thus, a debtor can raise a personal defence against a holder who has acted with the intent to harm them.
