T.C SUPREME COURT

15.Criminal Division

Main: 2016/ 3044

Verdict: 2018 / 7677

Decision Date: 06.11.2018

Court :Criminal Court

Crime: qualified fraud

Sentence: conviction in accordance with articles 158/1-e-son, 43, 62, 52 and 53 of the TCK

The verdict on the defendant’s conviction for fraud has been appealed by the defendant’s defence and his acting partner, and the case has been reviewed and considered necessary.,

The defendant, living with him and receiving a pension from the participating institution, received power of attorney from a notary on 21/12/1992 to withdraw his salary, although Nazife died in October 1993, this death incident was not reported to the population Directorate and other official authorities, the pension continued to be deposited in the bank account, the defendant until the date of the crime,without reporting this death incident, with a total pension of 75,911. 57 TL, the defendant provided unfair benefit by fraudulent actions in this case, defense, witness statements, as it is understood from the fethi kabir report, the Forensic Medical Institution report and the entire file, there was no violation of the conviction for qualified fraud against the defendant.

According to the trial, the evidence collected and shown at the site of the decision, the opinion and discretion of the court formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, the scope of the file examined; the rejection of other appeals of the defendant’s defense and its participating attorney, but;

No. 158 of TCK No. 5237. Article 1. in cases counted in paragraphs (e), (f) (i) and (k) of paragraph, the basic day to be determined in the determination of the judicial fine shall be at least twice the unfair benefit obtained from the crime, and the minimum amount shall be increased and decreased over the number of days to be determined by raising this amount, and the resulting number of days and the equivalent of one day of the same law 52. in accordance with the article, the determination of an incomplete judicial fine against the defendant, without regard to the fact that the resulting judicial fine should be determined as a result of multiplying the amount to be valued between 20-100 TL,

Because the appeals of the defendant’s defense and the participating attorney were considered in place in this respect, the provision therefore required the violation of Law No. 5320 8.in accordance with article 321 of Cmuk No. 1412, which is still being implemented. in accordance with article 322 of the same law, this provision does not require a retrial, but does not require a retrial. since it is possible to correct in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 06/11/2018 to correct and approve the provision in accordance with the procedure and the law by adding the phrases “7.591 days”, “11.386 days”, “9.488 days” and “189.760 TL”, respectively, by completely removing the terms “5,000 days”, “7,500 days”, “6,250 days” and “125,000 TL” from the provision for the judicial fine.