T.C SUPREME COURT
15.Criminal Division
Basis: 2017 / 35155
Decision: 2018 / 1282
Decision Date: 26.02.2018

At the end of the investigation phase conducted by the Konya Prosecutor General’s Office of 04.01.2016 and 2014/6022 investigation, 2016/104 No.of the official document on the rejection of the appeal against the decision that there is no place for prosecution Konya 1. Magistrate’s criminal judge dated 10.03.2016 and 2016/808 different business decision issued by the Ministry of Justice against 22.05.2017 days and 94660652-105-42-3882-2017 on the basis of the request to break the law for the benefit of the Supreme Court attorney general’s office 05.06.2017 days and 2017/34497 notification sent to our office was read.

In the communique requesting violation in the interests of the law;

File according to the scope, trustee of the complainant, the complainants …’s wife, born in 2011 and son of …’s father, The Late … …’s passed away in 2013 on the company’s business devolved themselves from … …movable and immovable property and to keep track of which brother-in-law …’e given power of attorney, questionable …’s also this abusing the power of attorney of the company’s shares by the other suspect the father …’and alleged an abuse of the Trust dated 25/12/2012 by e signed by the deceased as a result of bonds forged in an ongoing investigation into allegations of, Konya General Prosecutor’s Office decided that there is no room for prosecution on the grounds that there is not enough evidence to open a public case, and merci Konya 1. Although the magistrate decided to reject the appeal;

By Müşteki … on 26/07/2013 Konya 8. In his notary public office, the suspect …was granted power of attorney, and the suspect …abused this power of attorney four days after the date of issuance of power of attorney … Agriculture Livestock Service Contracting San. ve tic. Co. Ltd.’what 1.250.000,00 500 shares of the value of the Turkish lira, the other suspect who the father is …’by the decision dated 30/07/2013 rev e contained within the file transferred, and the transfer is not obtained the consent of the complainant, without an agreement on this suspicious …’s received the statement, “…to be transferred not only to the celebration of the agreement between us about how the company wanted to get rid of…” in the form of tevilli profess which as, again allegedly issued by the deceased were carried out 25/12/2012, 31/05/2013 payment dated 500.000, 00 Turkish Lira issued on the bill 25/06/2015 Forensic Medical Institution report, in summary, three different pens were used in the bill, some of them were previously edited using pencil, the amount was written in the section “five hundred thousand “in the article “face” congestion,” thousand” in the phrase position difference is present, in the file 12/02/2014 expert report taken from the graphologist, in summary, different items were used in the bill, “five thousand” of the article “face” by adding “besyuzbin” as tahrifatyapild where, with the remains of letters and numbers that belong to the type and numbers being deleted indicated the presence of described above require the opening of a criminal case on the grounds that the suspects where evidence is of a nature that this evidence should be evaluated and appreciated by the tribunal of objections to the acceptance of disregarding the Instead of hitting has not been seen in deciding whether the denial should be in writing, CMK No. 5271 309. in accordance with the article, the need for violation of the said decision was notified on the basis of a request to violate it in the interests of the law.

As seen in the place of thought in the notice issued with reference to breaking the law, Konya 1. Magistrate’s decision on 10.03.2016 date and 2016/808 different business no., 5271 no. 309 of CMK. according to Article 4 of the same article. in accordance with Paragraph (a) of the paragraph, it was decided unanimously on 26.02.2018 that the subsequent proceedings should be carried out by the appeal authority.