TURKISH SUPREME COURT, 11th CRIMINAL CHAMBER, Case No. 2013/755, Decision No. 2015/22745, Date: February 23, 2015
THE DEFENDANT SUBMITS A DOCUMENT INDICATING THAT HE WAS AWARE OF FORGERY IN THE DOCUMENT (Forgery of an Official Document – The Defendant Claims He Was Unaware of the Forgery in the Deed in Question / The Defendant Will Be Acquitted as No Evidence Was Obtained Beyond the Changing and Sincere Statements of the Alleged Forger)
FALSIFYING A PART OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE TO INFLATE THE PRICE (Allegation that the Attorney Committed the Crime of Forgery of an Official Document by Pursuing the Note While Knowing It Was Forged) – The Defendant Was Unaware That the Promissory Note Was Forged / The Person Accused of Forgery Must Be Acquitted Because No Evidence Was Obtained Other Than the Statements of the Person Alleged to Have Made the Alterations, and These Statements Were Not Deemed Sincere)
Forgery (The forgery attorney alleges that the defendant committed the crime knowing that the stock certificate in question had been tampered with. Tampering – the defendant’s interference with the certificate implies that the attorney/the person alleged to have made the alterations was unaware that the alleged tampering constituted a crime and was a sincere individual; since no evidence was obtained beyond the statements in question, an acquittal will be issued).
5237/Art. 204
SUMMARY:
A public prosecution was initiated against the defendant, an attorney, on the grounds that he executed a document despite knowing that his client had committed forgery in an official document and that the price had been inflated through forgery. The defendant argued that he was unaware that the document in question had been altered at various stages. Since no sufficient, conclusive, concrete, and clear evidence was obtained to convict the defendant—other than his client’s abstract statements, which changed over time and were found to be insincere—a decision of acquittal must be rendered.
CASE: The file was reviewed and deemed necessary:
DECISION:
1- The defendant is an attorney acting as the representative of AY, where AY is the creditor and A is the debtor-victim. A public prosecution case was filed against the defendant, alleging that he executed an official document—knowing that part of its value had been altered to 12,800 TL through forgery—in connection with the crime of forgery. The defendant claimed that he was unaware that the promissory note in question had been altered in stages; however, in addition to his inconsistent and insincere statements made at different stages, since sufficient concrete, clear, and conclusive evidence could not be obtained, the court must rule for the defendant’s acquittal rather than convict him on insufficient grounds.
2-According to the decision, the legal consequence of being sentenced to imprisonment for an intentional crime, as provided in Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, has been accepted. The absence of a provision regarding the deprivation of the rights listed in Paragraph 53,
CONCLUSION:
Evaluating the defendants’ objections on this basis at the trial is contrary to the law. This matter constitutes a violation of Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and Article 1412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and must be applied in accordance with this provision. According to the decision adopted unanimously on February 23, 2015, the provision regarding the violation of this article has been violated.