T.C.

SUPREME

5. PD e. 2014/5743 D. D. 2014/6848 19.6.2014

* The crime of usury ( in order to occur, it is sufficient for the defendant to lend money to only one person – it does not matter whether he turns this work into a profession )

• Lending money to more than one person is not a single crime ( usury crime – it is sufficient for the accused to lend money to only one person to occur/it is not important whether he turns this work into a profession, so it cannot be mentioned that the crime is the theme and lending money to more than one person is the only crime )

* Chained crime (usury crime – it cannot be mentioned that the crime is the theme and lending money to more than one person constitutes a single crime/but the provisions of the Chained crime will apply to the defendant, who appears to have committed the usury crime more than once and against more than one person at different times within the scope of the execution of the decision to commit the crime )

* Committing the crime of usury more than once and against more than one person ( applying the provisions of the chain crime – in accordance with the decision to commit the crime, the provisions of the chain crime should be applied against the defendant, who appears to have committed the crime of usury more than once and against more than one person at different times )

Case: accused of usury. P.of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, 241/1. ( three times ) in accordance with Article 3 years imprisonment (three times), decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance of Erbaa dated 6.11.2012 and 2009/326 basis, 2012/506;

Although the court sentenced the defendant to three separate usury offences for his actions against all three polytheists, Law No. 5237 No. 241. Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 5271 with a bet, since more than one person must be systematically and continuously borrowed money in exchange for interest in order for the usury offense to occur, and the number of victims will not be separate crimes, as there are no hits in the determination of more penalties in writing about the defendant. in accordance with article 22.4.2014 day and 94660652-105-60-0673-2014.8279.28257 in reference to the violation of the law no. 94660652-105-60-0673-2014. 8279. 28257 with the notification from the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court of Appeal to the Department with the notification and:

Decision: 241 of TCK No. 5237, which entered into force on 1.6.2005. of the crime of usury in the article “ … the person who lent the money to someone else in order to obtain the gain” in the form of described, according to this embodiment, only a person enough to lend money to the defendant for the crime to occur, and the absence of Transform transform into the importance of this profession, therefore, more than one person to borrow money from the temadi of the crime and that the provision cannot be mentioned because it creates only the crime, but at different times within the scope of the execution of the decision to commit a crime the crime of usury is committed against more than one person and on more than one occasion, apparently about a separate crime that the defendant is not, with the acceptance of the request, it is understood that the provisions of the Chained crime should be applied and that the request for violation of the law is considered in place on this basis.,

Conclusion: 6.11.2012 day given by the Criminal Court of First Instance of Erbaa and 2009/326 basis, Decision No. 2012/506 of CMK 309. deterioration in accordance with Article 4 of the same article. by the authority of Paragraph ( d); provision (A ) in paragraph 5237 of TCK 241/1. according to Article 43/1 of the TCK, it is understood that the defendant has committed his act against more than one victim to a 3-year prison sentence. according to the article ¼ rate increase by the defendant 3 years 9 months imprisonment with punishment by means of Correction, ( B ) and ( C ) paragraphs contained separately 3 years imprisonment with the determination of sections of the sentence to be removed, execution 3 years 9 months imprisonment with the same protection of other parts of the sentence, 17.6.2014 transfer dated petition to the defendant’s defense request to be released by the nature of the review and the nature of the established provision to be rejected, the court of Cassation to send the file to the Site C. His appointment as attorney general was unanimous on 19.06.2014.