T.C.
Supreme
11. Criminal Department
Main Number: 2011/1769
Decision No: 2012/13015
K. Date:2.7.2012
1 – on behalf of the defendants, were imported from abroad, with the entry declarations in the history of crime, to pay less customs duty and Value Added Tax on imported fabric from the transactions of the lower value from the value by showing a fake invoice by using the claim that he had committed the offence of forgery of official documents in the case of the public with the truth; doubt can be identified in terms of; customs entry is the subject of a crime with the statement of the objects to be imported and accordingly companion bills that reflect the actual values in order to determine if they are counterfeit, the seller of imported goods in the company remaining copies of the invoice date, number, amount, and the amount of customs declarations as they are consistent with the companion bill, whether or not the seller of this country imports customs the tax authorities and to declare whether or not the company, if they were, in what way and in what amount they are declared with the customs administration and the South Korean company that exports from the South Korea’s questions to be investigated by the Turkish embassy, accordingly, in reality, between the goods declared to the customs authority in terms of number and value of imported goods, whether there is a difference, incomplete statements, and the availability of tax losses or as the aforementioned bills produced by the defendants to be determined whether or not it was completely fake, Bakırköy 1 for the crime of opposition to the Smuggling Law in relation to the same incident.2002/191 opened to the Heavy Penal Court based on the understanding that there is a file numbered according to the imported file the lawsuit in the trial court and the criminal record of the summary to be credited to, the provision of certified copies of evidence of this case concern the file attached to the customs Inspector of certified copies of the report be brought, in terms of the defendants, the division of authority in the company is also investigated and all the evidence collected and the concrete facts in the investigation report are evaluated together and the expert report is taken again if necessary and the decision is made in writing with the incomplete investigation without taking into account the need to evaluate and determine the legal status of the defendants according to the result,
2- According to acceptance, too;
The penalty for the crime of forgery in an official document is 342/1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 765. imprisonment from 2 to 8 years in Article 204/1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237.although there is a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years in the article, in case the basic penalty is determined from the lower limit, TCK No. 5237.nun 53.the absence of the security measures specified in the article and applied as a result of the legal result of the imprisonment sentence in the Law No. 765 and the 6th amendment of the Law No. 647, TCK.nun 95.in accordance with the articles, if a crime is not committed during the trial period, it will be necessary to decide that the conviction has not occurred, in view of the fact that the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 will have consequences against the defendants, to make a decision in writing without supervision,
3- Not taking into account that although it is accepted by the court that they have issued invoices in October of multiple customs entry declarations v on different dates, the penalties should be increased in accordance with the provisions of chain crime,
4- 51 of the TCK No. 5237.despite the decision to postpone the sentence imposed on the defendants in accordance with Article 562 of the Law No. 5728, which entered into force on the date of the verdict in the same decision and was published in the Official Gazette No. 26781 dated 08.02.2008 and entered into force on the same day and resulted in a result in favor of the defendants. article 5271 of the amended CMK No. 231.according to Article 231/5 of the CMK.CMK in written form on insufficient grounds, betting on the postponement of the penalty, without evaluating and discussing whether the conditions listed in the article took place in the incident, without discussing the decision on the spot.nin 231.the decision not to apply the article,
Contrary to the law, the appeals of the defendants’ defense attorney and his attorney were considered in place in this respect, because of these reasons, the provision is 8/1 of Law No. 5320.321 of the CMUK No. 1412, which must be applied in accordance with Article.in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided to deteriorate on 02.07.2012.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.