TC SUPREME
Criminal Department Article No.:2011/21386
Decision No.:2014/14108 Decision Date:08.07.2014
THE CRIME OF LOOTING IN THE RESIDENCE OR ITS Octobers – MAKING A MISTAKE IN THE NATURE OF THE CRIME AND LIMITING FREEDOM ACCORDING TO THE DISCRETION OF THE EVIDENCE WHETHER IT IS A CRIME
REGARDLESS, THE BASIS OF THE LAW IS THE CREATION OF A PROVISION – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: Defendant V. …..A. By participating in more than the amount to be received ….
S, which has no legal receivable from the defendant. …. TCK 765’s
together with the plunder crime regulated in Article 5237, the act of forcing a participant to sign a promissory note is a plunder crime regulated in Article 5237 of the same Law
, the fact that it constitutes the crime of restricting the freedom regulated in the article
and it was stated that although the crime of establishing a verdict by making a mistake occurred, the evidence should be corrupted at its discretion.
(765 Pp. K. m. 499) (5237 PK m. 109, 149)
EVENT: The appeal of the conviction decision issued by the Local Court, the nature of the application, the type of punishment, its duration and
according to the date when the file was discussed, according to the nature of the crime:
Decision: According to the manner of occurrence of the incident, the content of the file, the statements of the victims and witnesses and the evasive defenses of the defendants,
A. ….defendant V. ….. it has received promissory notes in the amount of TL 2.5 billion in exchange for TL 1 billion borrowed money issued by,
due to the fact that the defendant is a loan shark, he borrowed TL 2.5 billion with a 7-month term for TL 1 billion,
when due, defendant V. to the participant
the defendant S paid the TL 1 billion he made when he was asked to write the payment on the back of the promissory note. who are with them ….dating fame
A.’what if the participant a week ago later said that there was no need, because they were and refused his request,
while sitting at coffee, the defendants called to them under the pretext of talking, to walk on the road
the defendant they started V.the fact that they joined the case, which they suddenly started in, forced the defendant to S .they brought him into the house, holding a gun to his head at home
after participating in the trial, which lasted ten days, one TL 3.5 billion and one blank promissory note defendant S.they forced him to sign and released, when they met on the way, when he said that he had saved money and would pay the promissory note, his name was
the participant who was participant A, who thought that the deed was approved considering that the last defendant had said so, who went to the prosecutor’s office one week after the complaint was filed, defendant V.for the follow-up of the case of
it was learned that he was forced to sign the bill by a third party.
in their defense, before the date of the incident from his wife
that he left, that he had money because he sold some of his belongings in his house, A.17.5 billion TL
defendant S.he claimed that he participated in the, lent money and received 20 billion TL promissory notes and pleaded not guilty.
In the stages of collapse, witness Jamal did not admit his guilt….defendant V.of A.or 1 billion in exchange for a promissory note
he knew that he gave lira, the defendant S.’s brother is the witness….. and the accused V.brother of S.2.5 and 5 billion liras of
that he wanted her to give it to him and collect it, witness Kadri…. defendant V.
during the search at the participant’s home, where he declared that he had taken the 20 billion banknote that was the subject of the crime and given it to the execution,
he declared that the gun was found, that the gun was a blank pistol,
in the top article of the law enforcement agencies dated 17.03.2004, the defendant V. … your $20 billion debt to a participant who is not in good financial condition,
it is understood that the share forcibly taken from the participant and which he cannot give can be filled as 20 billion
Defendant V. …..A. Who participates in more than the amount to be received ….
S, who has a legal claim from the defendant who cannot be found. …. TCKnun 499/1 No. 765 of the promissory note together with the act of forcing the participant to sign the promissory note 499/1.
plunder regulated in article 5237 of Turkish Penal Code 149/1-plunder regulated in article acd
due to the fact that his crime constitutes the crime of restricting freedom regulated in article 109/2-3-(EU) of the same Law
judgment without written supervision, at the discretion of the evidence and with a misconception of the nature of the crime
to establish,
Conclusion: To be overturned, defendants V. …. and s. ….. in this regard, the appeals of their defense
since it is seen on the spot, it CAN be BROKEN as requested for the explained reason,
8/1 of the Law No. 5320. article 326. article / last article of CMUKN No. 1412
duration of the sentence- protection of the acquired rights of the accused in terms of type and amount, 08.07.2014
on its history, on its history, it was decided unanimously.