Under Article 205 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), titled “Regarding a Genuine Official Document,” and Article 208, acts of falsifying, destroying, or concealing a “genuine private document” are punishable.
The destruction, removal, or concealment of an official or private document eliminates existing evidence, which also includes the removal of a means of proving public trust.
.
The material subject of the relevant offense is official or private documents. On the other hand, these documents must be legally valid and genuine; therefore, the alteration, destruction, or concealment of a forged document does not constitute these offenses. In such a case, the offense described in the article may only occur if the conditions specified in Article 281 are met. Similarly, if an altered portion of a genuine document is destroyed, the relevant offense does not occur.
The material element of this offense is the destruction, removal, or concealment of the documents specified in Articles 205 and 208—that is, rendering the document unusable as evidence. To “falsify” in the sense specified in the article means to alter a document in such a way that it can no longer be accepted as a valid document. Blacking out a document to the point where it becomes unreadable is a concrete example of this.
Destruction involves eliminating a document’s physical existence. An example of this is tearing up a handwritten will.
Concealment, as a physical act, means removing the document without destroying its physical existence. This also renders the document unusable.
If the damaged, destroyed, or concealed document is entirely under the perpetrator’s control, this act cannot be deemed unlawful. If the person has an obligation to present or return the document in their possession, such a mitigating authority does not apply.
Obtaining the consent of persons authorized to preserve the document eliminates the unlawfulness of the act.
.
These crimes are completed when the person entitled to record on the document is deprived of the ability to do so, that is, when they cannot use the document. Therefore, it is possible to attempt this crime.
The mental element of these offenses is the intent to destroy, and for the intent to exist, not only the will to destroy, destroy, or conceal the document but also the will to eliminate evidence is required. This second condition is accepted to distinguish the offenses mentioned in the article from the offense of damaging property. However, if the perpetrator acts solely with the intent to damage another’s property, the relevant offense does not occur; instead, the offense of damaging property is committed.
If the relevant offenses are established, the perpetrator cannot also be held liable for the offense of damaging another’s property. Acts such as “destruction, damage, or deterioration,” which constitute the offense as defined in Articles 205 and 208, are also specified in the criminal provisions. Conversely, if the document that has been destroyed or damaged was obtained through theft, the perpetrator must be held liable for both offenses.
Furthermore, the Law stipulates that if the perpetrator is a public official in the offense of violating, destroying, or concealing an official document, this constitutes an aggravating circumstance for the penalty.