T.R. JUDICIARY
- Criminal Chamber
Basis: 2016/ 3044
Decision: 2018 / 7677
Decision Date: 06.11.2018
COURT: Assize Court
CRIME: qualified fraud
PROVISION: Conviction pursuant to articles 158/1-e-son, 43, 62, 52 and 53 of the TCK
The judgment regarding the conviction of the accused for the crime of qualified fraud was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer and the attorney who participated, and the file was examined and the necessary consideration was taken,
Despite Nazife’s death in October 1993, the defendant received a power of attorney from the notary public on 21/12/1992 in order to withdraw the salary of his mother-in-law, Nazife, who lived with him and received a pension from the participating institution. the pension continued to be deposited into the bank account due to the failure to notify, the defendant did not report this death until the date of the crime, he took a total of 75,911.57 TL of his pension, the defendant obtained unfair advantage by fraudulent actions in this way, the defense of the defendant containing a confession, the statements of the witnesses, the conquest of the grave. As it is understood from the report of the Forensic Medicine Institute and the scope of the entire file, there was no misconduct in the conviction of the accused for the crime of qualified fraud.
According to the trial held, the evidence gathered and shown at the place of decision, the opinion and discretion of the court in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the scope of the examined file; the rejection of the other appeals of the defendant’s counsel and the participating attorney, but;
In cases listed in sub-paragraphs (e), (f) (i) and (k) of paragraph 1 of Article 158 of the TCK No. 5237, the basic day to be determined for the determination of the judicial fine is minimum, not less than twice the unfair advantage obtained from the crime, and In accordance with the 52nd article of the same law, after the increase and reductions are made over the number of days to be determined by increasing the amount, the resultant number of days is multiplied by the amount to be appreciated between 20-100 TL, regardless of whether the resulting judicial fine should be determined. penalty determination,
Since the objections of the defendant’s defense counsel and the participating attorney were deemed appropriate in this respect, the verdict was therefore VOID pursuant to Article 321 of the Criminal Code No. 1412, which is still in effect pursuant to Article 8 of the Law No. Since it is possible to rectify in accordance with the article, the terms “5,000 Days”, “7.500 Days”, “6.250 Days” and “125.000 TL” related to the judicial fine, respectively, were completely removed from the sentence clause and replaced with “7.591 Days”, “11.386 Days”, “9.488 Days”, respectively. It was unanimously decided on 06/11/2018 to CORRECT and APPROVE the provision, whose other aspects were found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, by adding the phrases “Day” and “189.760 TL”.