APPOINTMENT OF A SECRET INVESTIGATOR

Currently, in the face of increasing and complex organised crimes, there is a belief that classical protection measures will not be sufficient both in reaching the evidence of the crime and in combating organised crimes. For this reason, some secret protection measures are needed. One of these is the appointment of a secret investigator. The appointment of a secret investigator is an effective protection measure applied in the collection of information, documents and evidence necessary for the crimes that criminal organisations intend to commit. In particular, it is an important protection measure in practice for law enforcement officers to closely monitor the activities of the criminal organisation and collect evidence of crime by placing their own personnel within the criminal organisation. In addition to this importance, since the appointment of a secret investigator constitutes a significant interference with fundamental rights and freedoms, it is of great importance to clearly determine the conditions for the application of this measure in the law. As of today, the legal regulation in question is regulated under the article title “appointment of a secret investigator” in Article 139 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271, which is located in the sixth section titled “Secret Investigator and Monitoring by Technical Means” in the fourth part titled “Protection Measures”.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CMK) ART.139

(1) (Amended: 21/2/2014-6526/13 Art.) In the event that there are strong grounds for suspicion based on concrete evidence that the offence under investigation has been committed and no other evidence can be obtained, public officials may be assigned as secret investigators. The appointment pursuant to this article shall be decided by the judge (Repealed last sentence: 24/11/2016-6763/27 Art.).

(2) The identity of the investigator may be changed. Legal transactions may be performed with this identity. In case it is mandatory for the creation and maintenance of the identity, necessary documents may be prepared, changed and used.

(3) The decision on the appointment of an investigator and other documents shall be kept at the relevant Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The identity of the investigator shall be kept confidential even after the termination of his/her duty. (Additional sentences: 15/8/2017 KHK-694/142 Art.; Adopted as it is: 1/2/2018-7078/137 Art.) In case it is mandatory for the investigator to be heard as a witness during the prosecution phase, he/she shall be heard in a private environment without the presence of those who have the right to be present at the hearing or by changing his/her voice or image. In this case, the provision of Article 9 of the Witness Protection Law dated 27/12/2007 and numbered 5726 shall be applied by analogy.

(4) The investigator is obliged to conduct all kinds of investigations regarding the organisation whose activities he is assigned to monitor and to collect evidence related to the crimes committed within the framework of the activities of this organisation. (Additional sentence: 28/3/2023-7445/19 Art.) The judge may allow the investigator to make audio or video recordings in order to collect evidence in public places and workplaces in terms of the offence specified in subparagraph (1) of subparagraph (a) of the seventh paragraph.

(5) The investigator may not commit a crime while performing his/her duty and may not be held responsible for the crimes committed by the organisation to which he/she is assigned.

(6) Personal information obtained through the appointment of an investigator may not be used for purposes other than the criminal investigation and prosecution for which the investigator has been appointed. (Addition: 21/2/2014-6526/13 Art.) Personal information not related to the offence shall be destroyed immediately.

(7) The provisions of this Article may only be applied in relation to the offences listed below:

a) Offences under the Turkish Penal Code;
Manufacture and trafficking in narcotic drugs or stimulants regardless of whether committed within the framework of an organisation (Article 188), (1)
Forming an organisation for the purpose of committing an offence (Article 220, except paragraphs two, seven and eight),
Armed organisation (Article 314) or supplying arms to such organisations (Article 315).
b) Offences of arms smuggling as defined in the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Instruments (Article 12).
c) Offences defined in Articles 68 and 74 of the Law on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage.

EASON FOR ARTICLE 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code

[1] In the event that there are strong grounds for suspicion that the offence under investigation has been committed and no other evidence can be obtained, public officials may be appointed as secret investigators by the decision of the judge or the public prosecutor in cases where it is inconvenient to delay.

[2] The identity of the investigator can be changed. Legal transactions can be carried out with this identity. Necessary documents may be prepared, changed and used if necessary to establish and maintain the identity.

[3] The decision on the appointment of an investigator and other documents shall be kept at the relevant Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The identity of the investigator shall be kept confidential even after the termination of his/her duty.

[4] The investigator is obliged to carry out all kinds of investigations regarding the organisation whose activities he/she is assigned to monitor and to collect evidence related to the crimes committed within the framework of the activities of this organisation.

[5] The investigator may not commit a crime while performing his/her duty and may not be held responsible for the crimes committed by the organisation to which he/she has been assigned.

[6] Personal information obtained through the appointment of an investigator may not be used outside of the criminal investigation and prosecution for which the investigator has been appointed.

[7] The provisions of this article may only be applied in relation to the offences listed below:

a) Offences under the Turkish Penal Code;
Manufacture and trafficking of drugs or stimulants (Article 188),
Forming an organisation for the purpose of committing an offence (Article 220, except paragraphs two, seven and eight),
Armed organisation (Article 314) or supplying arms to such organisations (Article 315).
b) Offences of arms smuggling as defined in the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Instruments (Article 12).
c) Offences defined in Articles 68 and 74 of the Law on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage.

PRECEDENT JUDICIAL COURT DECISIONS

COURT :Criminal Court of First Instance

NUMBER : 2013/461 E., 2015/468

CRIMES : Abuse of trust, forgery of private documents

CONVICTIONS : Conviction

NOTIFICATION OPINION : Approval

The judgements established against the defendant; are appealable in accordance with Article 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 (Law No. 1412), which is in force as of the date of the decision pursuant to Article 8 of the Law No. 5320 amended by Article 33 of the Law No. 6723, As a result of the preliminary examination, it has been determined that the appellant has the right and authority to appeal the provisions pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Law No. 5271) in force on the date of the decision, that the request for appeal is in due time pursuant to Article 310 of the Law No. 1412, and that there is no situation requiring the rejection of the request for appeal pursuant to Article 317 of the same Law:

LEGAL PROCESS

With the decision of Istanbul Anatolian 7th Criminal Court of First Instance dated 15.09. 2015 dated 15.09.2015 and numbered 2013/461 Main, 2015/468 Decision, the defendant was sentenced to 2 months and 15 days imprisonment and a judicial fine of 20 TL for the offence of breach of trust in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 155, the second paragraph of Article 35, the second paragraph of Article 62, the second paragraph of Article 52, the second paragraph of Article 52, Article 58 and Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (Law No. 5237), deprivation of rights and application of the provisions of repetition; for the offence of forgery of private documents, to be sentenced to 10 months imprisonment pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 207, Article 62, Article 58 and Article 53 of the Law No. 5237, to be sentenced to deprivation of rights and to apply the provisions of recurrence.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The defendant’s request for appeal consists of his will to appeal the judgements.

III. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

Upon the notification received by Izmir Public Security Branch Directorate Auto Theft Bureau Directorate that the defendant wanted to take the vehicle with the number plate 06 BY 9432, which he rented from the rent a car owned by the participant … for 15 days on 19.07.2013, from Istanbul to Izmir and sell it there, the police officers on duty contacted the defendant by phone, said that they wanted to buy the vehicle, then they met with the defendant at the bus station, the defendant introduced himself as . … and stating that the vehicle subject to the crime belongs to him, he agreed on the sale of the vehicle with the police officers on duty, signed the ordinary sales contract between the parties on behalf of …, and thus committed the crimes of attempting to abuse trust and forgery of private documents.
In his defence, the defendant stated that he had a receivable of 5.000 TL from his friend named Hasan …, that he told Hasan … that he wanted to sell the vehicle he had in order to get this money, and that this person reported him.
It was determined that the original of the sales contract subject to the offence was found among the file.
The court accepted that the defendant committed the offences of attempting to abuse trust and forgery of private documents and the conviction provisions subject to appeal were established.
JUSTIFICATION

As stated in the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated 01.07.2021 and numbered 2018/18-323 Main, 2021/330 Decision, except for the crimes listed in Article 139 of the Law No. 5271, it is possible for law enforcement officers to carry out activities in line with the order of the public prosecutor and within the scope of their general powers and duties in accordance with Articles 160 and following of the same Law, in order to determine the crime and its perpetrator and to collect evidence related to the crime, without instigating and encouraging the crime. In this case, the officer in this situation is accepted as a “judicial law enforcement officer conducting a secret investigation”, not a secret investigator. It is clearly stated in the same decision that the evidence obtained by the judicial law enforcement officer conducting a secret investigation without inciting or instigating a crime will be in accordance with the law, but this officer can never act as a provocative agent, and cannot instigate the perpetrator to commit a crime by creating the intent to commit a crime that was not previously present in the perpetrator.

When the concrete case is evaluated in the light of these explanations; when it is understood that the investigating judicial law enforcement officers called the phone number specified in the notice as a customer and declared that they wanted to buy the vehicle with the number plate 06 BY 9432, arranged a meeting with the defendant and arranged an ordinary sales contract between them, it is understood that the judicial law enforcement officers acted as provocative agents and encouraged the defendant to commit a crime, and it was deemed unlawful to decide to convict the defendant instead of acquitting the defendant of the imputed crimes without considering that the evidence obtained by illegal method cannot be taken as a basis for the judgement.

DECISION

For the reasons explained in the justification section, since the defendant’s appeal requests for the decision of the Istanbul Anatolian 7th Criminal Court of First Instance dated 15.09.2015 and numbered 2013/461 Main, 2015/468 Decision are deemed appropriate, the judgements shall be reversed unanimously, contrary to the Communiqué, in accordance with Article 321 of the Law No. 1412,

The case file is referred to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation to be sent to the Court,

Decided on 06.09.2023.

You can read click here another article and petition examples.

Tatbestandsmerkmale der Straftatbestand des Drogenhandels 2

WAS IST DAS KRITERIUM DER “JAHRESVERBRAUCHSMENGE” BEI DROGENDELIKTEN?
Bei der Verhandlung von Drogendelikten ist das vom Kassationsgerichtshof festgelegte Kriterium der “Jahresverbrauchsmenge” von Bedeutung, wenn es darum geht, festzustellen, ob der Betäubungsmittelstoff in den Bereich des Gebrauchs oder des Handels fällt. Der Kassationsgerichtshof hält es jedoch für unzulässig, die persönliche Jahresverbrauchsgrenze durch Division der sichergestellten Drogenmenge durch die Anzahl der Täter ohne ausreichende Begründung und ohne Bewertung anderer Beweise zu bestimmen und die Tat nach dieser Charakterisierung zu ermitteln. Es sollte daher nicht übersehen werden, dass neben diesem Kriterium auch andere Beweismittel von großer Bedeutung sind.

Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass selbst bei einer Menge von 1 Gramm Betäubungsmittel der Angeklagte in Anwendung von Artikel 188/3 StPO wegen Drogenhandels verurteilt wird, wenn das Vorliegen des Verkaufs, der Beschaffung, der Weitergabe, der Verbringung und ähnlicher Handlungen durch Nebenbeweise festgestellt wird.

Die Menge, die für den Eigengebrauch des Täters angenommen werden kann, variiert je nach der physischen und psychischen Struktur der Person und der Art, dem Typ und der Qualität der Droge und der stimulierenden Substanz.

Das Ali Medical Institute hat festgestellt, dass Drogenkonsumenten dreimal täglich ein bis eineinhalb Gramm Cannabis konsumieren können. Das Kassationsgericht kam zu dem Schluss, dass die im gerichtsmedizinischen Bericht genannten 600-700 Gramm Cannabis innerhalb der jährlichen Höchstmenge für den persönlichen Gebrauch liegen.

CANNABIS UND CANNABISHANF;
Der Kassationsgerichtshof hat angenommen, dass Cannabis in einer Menge von mehr als 600-700 Gramm pro Jahr als Besitz zu gewerblichen Zwecken akzeptiert werden sollte.

Die Anzahl der Wurzeln und die Menge an Cannabis, die gewonnen werden kann, sollten bei der Bestimmung des Zwecks des Handels oder der Verwendung bei der Straftat des Anbaus von weiblichem Castor-Cannabis berücksichtigt werden. Laut Kassationsgerichtshof können Cannabispflanzen mit bis zu 20 Wurzeln im Rahmen des persönlichen Gebrauchs akzeptiert werden, wenn es keine anderen Beweise dafür gibt, dass sie zu kommerziellen Zwecken angepflanzt werden. Straftatbestand

HEROIN UND KOKAIN
Bei Heroin und Kokain wird der Besitz von 20 Gramm oder mehr der beschlagnahmten Substanz als Besitz zu gewerblichen Zwecken akzeptiert, wenn keine anderen Anhaltspunkte vorliegen.

Die tägliche Konsummenge für Heroin beträgt 150 mg und für Kokain 60 Milligramm. Straftatbestand

In der Türkei wurde im Jahr 2012 festgestellt, dass der Reinheitsgrad von Kokain zwischen 10 % und 92 % schwankt. Wenn in diesem Fall der Reinheitsgrad des bei dem Beschuldigten sichergestellten Kokains 84 % beträgt, kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass eine Dosis Kokain 50-100 mg beträgt.

SYNTHETISCHE PILLEN
Bei synthetischen Pillen, die Betäubungsmittel enthalten, hat der Kassationsgerichtshof ebenfalls angenommen, dass 50 Stück oder mehr zu Handelszwecken und nicht zum Gebrauch aufbewahrt werden. Die tägliche Konsummenge in Pillen beträgt 3-4 Stück.

METHAMPHETAMIN
Ein Konsum der Substanz Methamphetamin (Crystal) beträgt durchschnittlich 0,05 g. So können beispielsweise aus 12,85 g Methamphetamin durchschnittlich 257 Drogeneinheiten gewonnen werden. Der Kassationsgerichtshof betrachtet die in diesem Beispiel angegebene Menge im Rahmen des Drogenhandels. 9,9 Gramm der Methamphetamin-Substanz wurden vom Kassationsgerichtshof mangels anderer Beweise als innerhalb der Grenze des persönlichen Gebrauchs liegend akzeptiert, und der Kassationsgerichtshof akzeptierte, dass sie zum Gebrauch besessen wurde

BESCHLAGNAHME VON MEHR ALS EINER ART VON BETÄUBUNGSMITTELN;
Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass die Tat den Straftatbestand des illegalen Handels erfüllt, wenn mehr als eine Art von Betäubungsmitteln bei der Person beschlagnahmt wird, jedoch weniger als die oben genannten Mengen. Eine Person, die Betäubungsmittel konsumiert, ist in der Regel im Besitz von einem oder zwei verschiedenen Betäubungsmitteln mit ähnlicher Wirkstärke. Aus diesem Grund kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass der Beschuldigte, der heroin-, kokain-, cannabis- und amphetaminhaltige Tabletten mit unterschiedlicher Qualität und Wirkung besitzt, diese zum Zwecke des Verkaufs besitzt.

WIE WIRD DER STRAFTATBESTAND DES RAUSCHGIFTHANDELS FESTGESTELLT?
Die Menge der sichergestellten Betäubungsmittel ist ein wichtiges Element bei der Feststellung der Absicht des Täters, mit Betäubungsmitteln zu handeln. Dabei wird die Absicht des Täters bei der Tat berücksichtigt.
Es sollte ein Sachverständigengutachten darüber eingeholt werden, ob die beim Täter sichergestellte Menge an Betäubungsmitteln innerhalb der jährlichen Eigenbedarfsgrenze liegt.
Gibt es in den Prozessakten keine Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass der Besitz des Betäubungsmittels dem Handel, der Beschaffung, der Beförderung und ähnlichen Zwecken diente, ist die Absicht des Täters, mit dem Betäubungsmittel zu handeln, anhand der Menge des Betäubungsmittels zu ermitteln.
Die Menge des sichergestellten Betäubungsmittels kann nicht automatisch durch die Anzahl der Täter geteilt werden, um die Jahresgrenze für den Eigenverbrauch zu ermitteln. Es müssen andere Kriterien und Beweismittel berücksichtigt werden.
Die Handlungen des Beschuldigten, die Art und Weise der Sicherstellung und des Besitzes des Betäubungsmittels, die Zeit und der Ort des Auffindens des Betäubungsmittels, die Frage, ob der Beschuldigte Betäubungsmittel konsumiert hat oder nicht, sowie der soziale und wirtschaftliche Status des Beschuldigten sind ebenfalls von großer Bedeutung und werden bei der Ermittlung der Straftat berücksichtigt.

Unsere anderen Artikel, Sie hier

Unsere anderen Musterurteile und Petitionen finden Sie hier