EN SUPREME COURT
Criminal Department
Based on: 2016/10029
The Verdict: 2016/8897
Decision Date: 23.06.2016
THE CRIME OF SMUGGLING – ILLEGAL CIGARETTES DETECTED DURING THE SEARCH OF THE STOPPED VEHICLE AT THE ROAD CONTROL – THE JURISDICTION MADE THE FACILITY WRONG DUE TO THE LACK OF INVESTIGATION – THE DECISION HAD TO BE Decertified
SUMMARY:
During the road check conducted on the date of the incident, 1,720 cartons of unlabeled and smuggled cigarettes were seized during the search of the vehicle in which … was found next to ….
Given that he requested a vehicle to carry clothes and provided a vehicle for this purpose, his declaration that he had nothing to do with smuggled cigarettes, this defense of the other defendant made a partially correct statement, the file opened about … and … found in the vehicle during the arrest, the file numbered 2013/230 of the Criminal Court of First Instance, the file was brought in and examined, and as a result of taking into account the statements in this file, the determination and determination of the defendant’s legal status, if necessary, the establishment of a Jul with incomplete examination is inappropriate.
(4733 SK Md. 8)
Trial: By applying for an appeal against the decision of the local court; After the file was read taking into account the nature of the application, the type of punishment, the duration and the date of the crime, the necessity was discussed and decided on behalf of the Turkish Nation;
Decision:
– Participated … in the examination of the appeal of the deputy of the Administration;
According to the criminal history and the nature of the confiscated goods, the action to be taken against the accused is contained in Article 8/4 of Law No. 4733, amended by Law No. 5752. Since the customs administration, which is not directly harmed by the crime, does not have the authority to participate in the case and object to the judgment due to falling within the scope of the paragraph, the objection request of the treasury representative on behalf of the customs administration is subject to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. 317 Of the CMUK No. 1412, which is in force according to the Article. the article was REJECTED according to,
II- The accused … in the examination conducted on the appeal of the defense;
During the road check conducted on the date of the incident, 1,720 cartons of unlabeled and illegal cigarettes were seized during the search of the vehicle that was stopped and found inside. Considering that he wanted a vehicle to transport his belongings and provided a vehicle for this purpose, he declared that he had nothing to do with smuggled cigarettes, and suggested that this defense of the other defendant was partially correct Jul. The file numbered 2013/230 of the Criminal Court of First Instance was brought and the file numbered 2013/279 was examined and the legal status of the accused should be determined and determined as a result of the examination of the file by taking into account the statements in this file, but the penalty determination should be made in writing with incomplete examination,
Conclusion: Since the objections of the defendant’s defense in this matter are considered on the spot and are contrary to the law, the judgment is 8/1 of Law No. 5320. it is located in the article. 321 Of the CMUK No. 1412, which is in force according to the Article. according to the article, it was decided unanimously to cancel it on 23.06.2016.