T.R. JURISDICTION 11th CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT E. 2013/755, K. 2015/22745, T. 23.02.2015
- LAWYER’S FOLLOWING THE DECISION THAT THEY KNOW WAS falsified (Forgery of Official Document – Acquittal of the Defendant, Since the Defendant Defends He Didn’t Know That the Promissory Note Was Forged/Changed and Not Sincere Statements of the Person Allegedly Falsified)
- INCREASING THE PRICE BY falsifying the price part of the deed (The Alleged that the Lawyer Committed the Crime of Forgery in the Official Document by Pursuing the Promissory Note, Knowing that the Deed Was Forged required )
- FOREGOING IN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT (The Allegation that the Lawyer Committed the Crime of Forgery in the Official Document by Pursuing the Promissory Note, Knowing that the Promissory Note was Forgery – Acquittal Will Be Given, Since Evidence Could Not Be Obtained Except for the Changed and Insincere Statements of the Person Allegedly Falsified)
5237/m. 204
SUMMARY : A public lawsuit has been filed with the allegation that the defendant, who is a lawyer, committed the crime of forgery in the official document by putting it into execution knowing that the price was increased by falsifying the bill by his client. The defendant argued that he did not know that the deed that was the subject of the crime had been falsified during the stages. Apart from the client’s abstract statement, which changes in stages and does not seem sincere, the defendant’s acquittal should be decided considering that sufficient definitive, concrete and unsuspecting evidence for his conviction could not be obtained.
CASE: The file has been examined and the need has been considered:
DECISION: 1-As the attorney of the defendant, A. Y., the creditor of the defendant A. Y., the debtor the victim A. Ö. In the civil lawsuit filed with the allegation of committing the crime of forgery in the official document by knowing that the 2800 TL deed, which is worth 2800 TL, was falsified by the AY, knowing that the price was increased to 12,800 TL, the defendant argued that he did not know that the deed that was the subject of the crime had been falsified during the stages, the conviction of the accused on insufficient grounds instead of acquittal, without considering that sufficient concrete, concrete and unsuspecting evidence for his conviction could not be obtained other than his statement,
2-According to the acceptance; not be sentenced to the deprivation of rights as specified in paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the TCK numbered 5237, which is the legal consequence of being sentenced to imprisonment for an intentional crime,
CONCLUSION: As it is against the law and the defendant’s appeals are deemed appropriate in this respect, the verdict is stated in the 8/1 of the Law No. 5320 for these reasons. It was unanimously decided on 23.02.2015 that it should be VOID pursuant to article 321 of the CMUK numbered 1412, which should be implemented in accordance with the article.