SUKUK PİYASALARINDA DOLANDIRICILIK RİSKLERİ: KURUMSAL ZAFİYETLER VE ÖNLEYİCİ STRATEJİLER

Abstract

Bu araştırma, İslami finansal enstrümanlar arasında giderek artan bir öneme sahip olan sukuk piyasalarında ortaya çıkan dolandırıcılık risklerini kurumsal ve yapısal boyutlarıyla incelemektedir. Literatür taramasında sukukun hukuki ve yapısal özellikleri ile İslami finans ilkeleri ele alınmış, dolandırıcılık davranışları ise “hile üçgeni” çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmada beş çarpıcı vaka (Dana Gas, The Investment Dar, IIG Kademeli Temerrüd Vakası, Saad Group & Al Gosaibi ve Goldman Sachs Sukuk) üzerinden risk türleri analiz edilmiş; bu vakalarda görülen temel sorunların sahte varlık beyanları, fonların amacı dışında kullanımı, Ponzi benzeri yapılandırmalar ve şeriat uyumluluğunun manipülasyonu olduğu ortaya koyulmuştur. Ayrıca, Şeriat Danışma Kurullarının bağımsızlık eksikliği, uluslararası düzenlemelerdeki uyumsuzluk, denetim ve şeffaflık açıkları gibi sistemsel kurumsal zafiyetler irdelenmiştir. Araştırma, bağımsız varlık doğrulama süreçleri, AAOIFI/IFSB standartlarının zorunlu hale getirilmesi, kamuoyu bilgilendirmesinin kurumsallaşması ve şeriat danışmanlarının profesyonel sertifikasyonu gibi önleyici mekanizmalar önermektedir. Araştırma, sukuk piyasalarının hem etik hem de finansal sürdürülebilirliği için güçlü regülasyon, denetim ve yönetişim yapılarına ihtiyaç duyduğunu vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Sukuk
• İslami Finans
• Dolandırıcılık
• Şeriat Uyumlu Yatırımlar
• Finansal Regülasyon

FRAUD RISKS IN SUKUK MARKETS: INSTITUTIONAL VULNERABILITIES AND PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES

Abstract

This study examines the risks of fraud emerging in sukuk markets—which are gaining increasing importance among Islamic financial instruments—through both institutional and structural dimensionss. The literature review covers the legal and structural characteristics of sukuk as well as the principles of Islamic finance, while fraudulent behaviors are assessed within the framework of the “fraud triangle”. The study analyzes types of risk through five notable cases (Dana Gas, The Investment Dar, the IIG Gradual Default Case, Saad Group & Al Gosaibi and Goldman Sachs Sukuk), revealing that the main issues in these cases include false asset declarations, misuse of funds, Ponzi-like structures, and manipulation of Shariah compliance. Additionally, systemic institutional weaknesses such as the lack of independence of Shariah Supervisory Boards, inconsistencies in international regulations, and deficiencies in audit and transparency mechanisms are examined. The research proposes preventive mechanisms such as independent asset verification processes, mandatory implementation of AAOIFI/IFSB standards, institutionalized public disclosure, and professional certification of Shariah advisorss. The research emphasizes the need for robust regulatory, supervisory, and governance frameworks to ensure both the ethical and financial sustainability of sukuk marketss.

Keywords

• Sukuk
• Islamic Finance
• Fraud
• Shariah Compliant Investments
• Financial Regulation

References

1. Aaoifi GS 7. (2023). AAOIFI GS 7 – Corporate Social Responsibility, Conduct and Disclosure for Islamic Financial Institutionss. AAOIFI: https://aaoifi.com/aaoifi-gs-7-corporate-social-responsibility-conduct-and-disclosure-for-islamic-financial-institutions/?lang=en adresinden 11.02.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
2. Abdo, A. (2014). A Critical Review of the Sukuk Market A qualitative study to identify current risks and opportunitiess. Dublin Business School.
3. Acfe. (2024). Occupational Fraud 2024: A Report to the Nationss. Association of Certified Fraud Examinerss.
4. Akpınar, A., & Çetintaş, M. (2021). Sukuk Yatırım Sertifikalarının FFMS 33 ve FFMS 34 Kapsamında Muhasebeleştirilmesi. International Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance Studies, 2021-1, 72-99.
5. Aktaş, M. (2016). Ortaklığa Dayalı İslâmî Yapılandırılmış Fınansman Ürünü: Muşaraka Sukuk. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(Afro-Avrasya Özel Sayısı), 467-487.
6. Albrecht, W., Albrecht, C., Albrecht, C., & Zimbelman, M. (2019). Fraud Examination. Boston-USA: Cengage Learning.
7. Aljarhi, M. (2021). Sukuk Standard. İslam Ekonomisi Dergisi, 1(1), 50-71.
8. Atar, A. (2017). Başlangıcından Günümüze Dünyada ve Türkiye’de İslâmi Bankacılığın Genel Durumu. Tarih Kültür ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1029-1062.

9. Biss. (2015). Criteria for identifying simple, transparent and comparable securitisationss. Bank for International Settlementss.
10. Bloomberg. (2010). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-04-12/kuwait-international-investment-unable-to-meet-200-million-sukuk-payment adresinden 29.09.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
11. Busari, SS., AbdulAziz, A., Zakariyah, L., & Amanullah, M. (2019). Dana Gas Sukuk default: a juristic analysis of court judgement. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 12(4), 569-585.
12. Bussmann, K.-D., & Werle, M. (2006). Addressing Crime in Companies: First Findings from a Global Survey of Economic Crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 46(6), 1128-1144.
13. Casemine. (2009). Casemine. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff73960d03e7f57ea9fd0 adresinden 09.01.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
14. Casemine. (2017, 11 17). https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897ab2c94e06b9e1982fa adresinden 09.01.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
15. Cayman Compass. (2009). https://www.caymancompass.com/2009/11/19/saad-subsidiary-defaults-on-sukuk adresinden alınmıştır
16. Clifford Chance. (2010). Islamic finance: when will an English court consider Shari'a compliance? Clifford Chance.
17. Cressey, D. (1973). Other people's money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
18. Çakmakkaya, Ö. (2012). Bilimsel Kanıta Ulaşmak: Biyomedikal Veri Tabanları ile İlgili Derleme. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 2(2), 104-108.
19. Çebi, A., & Ünkaya, G. (2018). Finansman Modeli Olarak Murabaha Sukuk: Türkiye’deki Uygulaması ve Muhasebeleştirilmesi. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Dergisi - İAÜD, 10(4), 9-23.
20. Davies, A. (2011). Reuterss. https://www.reuterss.com/article/business/goldman-faces-new-controversy-over-islamic-bond-idUSL6E8CB2IM/ adresinden 02.11.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
21. Diyanet. (15.04.2025). Diyanet İşler Başkanlığı Kuran Portalı. https://kuran.diyanet.gov.tr/ adresinden 28.10.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
22. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
23. El Baltaji, D. (2011). Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-20/goldman-sachs-sukuk-row-may-dent-industry-lure-islamic-finance adresinden 06.02.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
24. El- Hawary, D., Grais, W., & Iqbal, Z. (2004). Regulating Islamic Financial Institutions: The Nature of the Regulated. Washington DC: The World Bank.
25. Elhalaby, SS., Sarea, A., Alnesaf, A., & Al-Absy, M. (2023). The Adoption of AAOIFI Standards by Islamic Banks: Understanding the Microeconomic Consequencess. Economies, 11(39), 1-22.
26. Fountain Court. (2021). https://www.fountaincourt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/AHAB-CICA-Civil-Appeal-15-of-2018-21.12.2021.pdf adresinden 08.03.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
27. Grassa, R. (2013). Shariah supervisory system in Islamic financial institutions: New issues and challenges: A comparative analysis between Southeast Asia models and GCC modelss. Humanomics, 29(4), 333-348.
28. Greuning, H., & Iqbal, Z. (2008). Risk Analysis for Islamic Bankss. The World Bank: Washington DC.
29. Gsn. (2018). Golf State Newsletter. https://www.gsn-online.com/news-centre/article/saudi-arabia-gosaibi-and-sanea-hit-fraud-ruling adresinden 17.03.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
30. Haroon, O., Meenai, SS., & Rizv, SS. (2019). Dana Gas: The Sukuk Dispute. Asian Journal of Management Cases, 17(1), 42-54.
31. Hayat, U., & Malik, A. (2014). Islamic Finance: Ethics, Concepts, Practice. CFA Institute Research Foundation.
32. Haywood, M. (2018). Saad Investments Company Limited v Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi and Brothers Company. Digest, ss. 15-23.
33. Hidayat, SS. (2013). A Comparative Analysis between Asset-Based and Asset-Backed Sukuk: Which One is More Shariah Compliant? International SAMANM Journal of Finance and Accounting, 24-31.
34. Iefpedia. (2011). Islamic Economics and Finance Pedia. https://www.iefpedia.com/english/?p=6144 adresinden 21.02.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
35. Ifrs Foundation. (2018). Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. International Accounting Standards Board.
36. Ifsb. (2005). Guiding Principles of Risk Management for Institutions (other than Insurance Institutions) offering only Islamic Financial Services (IIFS). Islamic Financial Services Board: https://www.ifsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/IFSB-1-December-2005_En.pdf adresinden 17.04.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
37. Ifsb. (2012). IFSB 13 - Guiding Principles on Stress Testing for Institutions offering Islamic Financial Servicess. Islamic Financial Services Board : https://www.ifsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/eng_IFSB-13-Guiding-Principles-on-Stress-Testing-Mar2012.pdf adresinden 13.04.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
38. Ifsb. (2013). Disclosure Requirements For Islamic Capital Market Productss. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Islamic Financial Services Board.
39. Ifsb. (2024). Islamic Financial Services Industry Stability Report 2024 . Kuala Lumpur - Malezya: Islamic Financial Services Board.
40. Imf. (2018). The Core Principles For Islamic Finance Regulations And Assessment Methodology. Policy Paper, International Monetary Fund.
41. Iqbal, Z., & Mirakhor, A. (2011). An Introduction to Islamic Finance: Theory and Practice (Second Edition b.). Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd.
42. Jobst, A. (2007). The Economics of Islamic Finance and Securitization (IMF Working Paper WP/07/117 ). IMF.
43. Jobst, A., Kunzel, P., Mills, P., & Sy, A. (2007). IMF Survey: Islamic Finance Expanding Rapidly. IMF Monetary and Capital Markets Department.
44. Kassem, R., & Higson, A. (2012). The new fraud triangle model. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(3), 191-195.
45. Kazan, G. (2021). Hile Üçgeni, Hile Elması ve Hile Beşgeni: Hile Eylemlerinin Nedenlerine İlişkin Teorilere Kavramsal Bakış. Muhasabe ve Denetime BAKIŞ(62), 245-258.
46. Kibar, A. (2018). Sermaye Piyasası Hukuku Açısından Asimetrik Bilgi Sorunsalı Ve Çözüm Yolları. Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi, 4(2), 187-210.
47. Kılınç, Y. (2024). Bir Nakit Kullandırma Yöntemi Olarak Teverruk: Muhasebe Açısından Bir İnceleme. İslam Ekonomisi ve Finansı Dergisi (İEFD), 10(1), 204-239.
48. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviewss. Keele, Staffs, UK: Keele University.
49. Laldin, M. (2009). The Role of Shari’ah Advisors in the Development of Islamic Securitiess. 2nd Colloquium on Islamic Sukuk, (ss. 1-17).
50. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publicationss. Lseg. (2023). Islamic Finance Development Report. London: London Stock Exchange Group.
51. Lukonga, I. (2015). Islamic Finance, Consumer Protection, and Financial Stability. IMF.
52. Marden, R., & Edwards, R. (2005). Internal controls for the small business: Skimming and the fraud triangle. Internal Auditing, 3-10.
53. Maurer, B. (2010). Form versus substance: AAOIFI projects and Islamic fundamentals in the case of sukuk. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 1(1), 32-41.
54. Mcaughtry, L. (2018). Digesting Dana Gas: Lessons learned. IFN Islamic Finance News, ss. 3-5.
55. Mei, C., Mulyati, D., & Julianto. (2022). nalisis Kasus Pelanggaran Etik Akuntan Publik pada PT. Sunprima
56. Nusantara Pembiayaan (SNP Finance). Ekonomi Bisnis Manajemen dan Akuntansi (EBMA), 3(2), 941-949.
57. Mejía, A., Aljabrin, SS., Awad, R., Norat, M., & Song, I. (2014). Regulation and Supervision of Islamic Bankss. International Monetary Fund (IMF).
58. Miedema, D., Robbins, SS., & White, SS. (2010). A Saad Story. Reuterss.
59. Mohammed, K. (2011). Goldman Sachs Claims that its $2 billion Sukuk Programme Follows a Murabaha Structure, Mohammed Khnifer Claims Otherwise - That it's Nothing More than Areverse Tawarruq. Islamic Business & Finance(69), ss. 28-29.
60. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), 1-6.
61. Mollah, SS., & Zaman, M. (2015). Shari’ah Supervision, Corporate Governance and Performance: Conventional vss. Islamic Bankss. Journal of Banking & Finance(58), 418-435.
62. Najeeb, SS., & Mohamed Ibrahim, SS. (2014). Professionalizing the role of Shari'ah auditors: How Malaysia can generate economic benefitss. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal(28), 91-109.
63. Nysb. (2024). United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. https://www.nysb.uscourtss.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/317771_74_opinion.pdf adresinden 23.02.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
64. Othman, R., & Ameer, R. (2015). Conceptualizing the duties and roles of auditors in Islamic financial institutions: What makes them different? Humanomics, 31(2), 201-2013.
65. Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th Edition b.). SAGE Publicationss.
66. Pijls, A. (2023). Prospectus Liability and Causation. Journal of European Tort Law, 14(2), 189-205.
67. Practical Law. (2017). Thomson Reuterss. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuterss.com/w-011-6670?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default adresinden 30.01.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
68. Reuterss. (2010). https://www.reuterss.com/article/markets/kuwaits-iig-defaults-on-1525-mln-bond-payment-idUSLDE66P0H6/ adresinden 18.02.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
69. Reuterss. (2017). https://www.reuterss.com/article/dana-gas-sukuk-injunction-idUSL8N1JF03J adresinden 18.02.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
70. Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real World Research: A Resource for Users of Social Research Methods in Applied Settings (4th Edition b.). WILEY.
71. Schuchter, A., & Levi, M. (2016). The Fraud Triangle revisited. Security Journal, 29(2), 107-121.
72. Sec. (2020). U.SS. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2020/lr24790-final-judgment-iig.pdf adresinden 08.03.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
73. Sori, Z., Mohamad, SS., & Rashid, M. (2015). Shariah Committee Independence: An Insider’s View. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-8.
74. Sukuk. (2017, 11 17). https://www.sukuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Dana-Gas-judgment.pdf adresinden 24.01.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
75. Suryanto, T., & Ridwansyah, R. (2016). The Shariah Financial Accounting Standards: How they Prevent Fraud in Islamic Banking. European Research Studies, 19(4), 140-157.
76. Suryanto, T., & Ridwansyah, R. (2016). The Shariah Financial Accounting Standards: How they Prevent Fraud in Islamic Banking. European Research Studies Journal, 19(4), 140-157.
77. Tasnia, M., Mustapha, I., & Shakil, M. (2017). Critical assessment of the Legal Recourse for the Case of Sukuk default for the Asset-Backed Sukuk and Asset-Based Sukuk structuress. European Journal of Islamic Finance(7), 1-7.
78. The Jakarta Post. (25.09.2018). The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/09/25/consumer-finance-firm-allegedly-defrauds-banks-of-rp-14-trillion.html adresinden 01.04.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
79. Tırman, N., & Keçeci, İ. (2024). Temerrüde Düşen Önemli Sukuk İhraçlarına İlişkin Vaka Analizi. Maruf İktisat İslam İktisadı Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 16-41.
80. Tkbb. (2024). Türkiye Katılım Bankaları Birliği. https://www.tkbb.org.tr/upload/Faizsiz%20Finans%20Standartlar%C4%B1%20AAOIFI%20(Gu%CC%88ncellenmis%CC%A7%20Versiyon).pdf adresinden 26.01.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
81. Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2019). Conventional Banks Risk Diversification: A Case for Islamic Finance. Theoretical Economics Letters(9), 1967-1980.
82. Toprak, M., Ergeç, E., & Kaytancı, B. (2020). İslami Finansta Pencere Modeli. Katılım Finans, 4(21), ss. 52-55.
83. Ulaş, M., & Bayram, K. (2021). İcare Sukuk Sertifikalarının Örnek Olay Üzerinden Değerlendirilmesi: Nakheel Sukuk Örnek Olayı. İslam Ekonomisi ve Finansı Dergisi (İEFD), 7(2), 229-254.
84. Ulusoy, A., & Ela, M. (2015). Türkiye'de Sukuk Sertifikalarının Kamu Finansmanında Kullanımı: Genel Bir Değerlendirme. International Congress on Islamic Economics and Finance (ICISEF) Proceedings (ss. 139-158). Sakarya: Sakarya University - Research Center for Islamic Economics and Finance.
85. Vizcaino, B. (2017). Reuterss. https://www.reuterss.com/article/markets/mideast-debt-islamic-finance-industry-frets-as-dana-gas-deems-its-sukuk-invalid-idUSL8N1JB05A adresinden 07.04.2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
86. Warde, I. (2010). Islamic Finance in the Global Economy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
87. Wells, J. (2015). Principles of Fraud Examination. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New Jersey, USA.
88. Whytock, C. (2011). The Evolving Forum Shopping System. Cornell Law Review, 96(3), 481-534.
89. Wijnbergen, SS., & Zaheer, SS. (2013). Sukuk Defaults: On Distress Resolution in Islamic Finance. Amsterdam: Tinbergen Institute.
90. Wilkins, A., Acuff, W., & Hermanson, D. (2012). Understanding a Ponzi Scheme: Victims’ Perspectivess. Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting, 4(1), 1-17.
91. Yardımcıoğlu, M., Ayrıçay, Y., & Coşkun, SS. (2015). İslami Finans Çerçevesinde Menkul Kıymetleştirilmiş Varlık; Sukuk Dünya ve Türkiye Piyasası İncelemesi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergis, 4(1), 157-174.
92. Yazıcı, N. (2018). Hile Üçgeni: Fırsatların Önlenmesinde Kırık Camlar Teorisi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi, 53(3), 843-851.
93. Yin, R. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th Edition b.). SAGE Publications, Inc.