T.C. SUPREME

7.Criminal Division
Basis: 2016/4980
Decision: 2016/9074
Decision Date: 30.06.2016

CRIME OF EMBEZZLEMENT – THE QUESTION OF WHETHER DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT’S EMBEZZLED ACTIONS WAS COMPENSATED BY THE DEFENDANT – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION

SUMMARY: the damage resulting from embezzlement by the court that the defendant acts which constitute matter when assessing whether you have been compensated by the defendant, the defendant alleged in the report, taken by the inspector, however, is not the case with the indictment of the Chief Public Prosecutor of Ankara investors apparently improperly transferred and the account in your name with the receipt for the amount paid on the same day payment USD operations are included in the scope of the evaluation of the amount of damage resulting from it being understood that, … After a lawsuit was filed in terms of transactions related to the amount of USD, both case files were combined and all the evidence was evaluated together, and the determination and determination of the legal status of the accused was necessary, incomplete examination and investigation and sentencing required to be broken.

(5271 P. K. m. 231) (1412 P. K. m. 318)

Case: the verdict given by The Local Court was appealed; after reading the file according to the nature of the application, type of punishment, duration and date of crime, the requirement was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish nation;

I)in the examination of the appeal request of the participating bank attorney for the decision to withdraw the disclosure of the sentence given against the defendant …;

CMK 5271, amended by law No. 5560 in force on the date of provision.of 231/12.in accordance with the paragraph of the article, the legal path to appeal against decisions to withdraw the disclosure of the provision is clear, the appeal of the decision is not possible, the appeal of the appeal is rejected by the authority of the appeal is understood from the content of the file, the file is returned without review to the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court,

II)in the examination of the defendants ‘ defense and the participating bank’s attorney’s requests for appeals against the verdict against the accused …;

8 of law 5320, since the defendant’s defense request for a judicial review is not considered in place, according to the type and amount of sentence imposed. 318 of Cmuk No. 1412 in force in accordance with article. in the review, the decision was made to reject it in accordance with the article;

The damage resulting from embezzlement by the court that the defendant acts which constitute matter when assessing whether you have been compensated by the defendant, the defendant alleged in the report was taken by the inspector, but the Ankara chief prosecutor’s indictment 15.04.2002 investors apparently is not the case with improperly transferred the account in your name and on the same day the payment receipt for the amount paid with USD 35.000 operations are included in the scope of the evaluation of the amount of damage resulting from it being understood that, After filing a lawsuit in the direction of transactions related to the amount of US $ 35,000, both case files were combined and all the evidence was evaluated together, and then the legal status of the accused should be determined and determined, incomplete examination and investigation and written provision should be established,

Contrary to the law, since the appeals of the defendant’s defense and the participating bank attorney were considered in place in this respect, the provision is 8/1 of law 5320.321 of Cmuk No. 1412 in force under Article.in accordance with the article, it was decided by unanimous decision on 30.06.2016.