T.C.
SUPREME
19. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
BASE NO. 2016/13073
DECISION NO. 2017/2290
DATE OF DECISION. 16.3.2017

340 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code of 2004 of the defendant … for violating the borrower’s payment requirement. according to Article 1 of Alanya on the punishment of up to 3 months of suspended imprisonment. According to the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 13/02/2014 and based on 2013/957 and Numbered 2014/104, the same defendant was again executed in accordance with Article 340 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Code of 2004. according to Article 2 of Alanya on the punishment of up to 3 months of suspended imprisonment. Alanya 1 on the rejection of the appeal against the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 30/10/2014 and based on 2014/1084, No. 2014/1484. October 17, 2014 and 2014, 2016 days and 94660652-105-07-4589-2016- The case file attached to the letter containing the request to overturn the Ministry of Justice for the benefit of the law No. 94660652-105-4589-2016 against the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 17/11/2014 and numbered 2014/2016 of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court.It was read by sending it to our apartment with notification No. 2016-333621.

According to the scope of the file, the defendant has Alanya 2. The Enforcement Directorate has made a bet that it will pay the entire debt on 30/04/2013 at the time of the foreclosure dated 12/02/2013, which it owes in the enforcement follow-up file No. 2012/9339, but after it violates the commitment, Alanya 1. Enforcement of the Criminal Court dated 13/02/2014 2013/957 based on the decision becomes final and without appeal by decision of 2014/104 was punished with confinement pressure, then on again during this time of 14/05/2014 foreclosures bet they’d pay the debt on the date of the second resides in 14/06/2014 entire time commitment, but the commitment is still upon the breach at this time in Alanya 2. Although it is understood that he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 30/10/2014 and based on 2014/1084 and Numbered 2014/1484, and the defendant’s appeal against this decision was also rejected,

1- ) The details of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassation dated 29/09/2009 and based on 2009/16-188, as stated in decision No. 2009/205 on the same debt relationship, the total amount of mandatory imprisonment may not exceed 3 months, regardless of whether the decision on mandatory imprisonment for up to 3 months is made twice in writing,

2- ) Article 340 of the Law No. 2004. in accordance with the article, the total amount of debt, the interest to be processed and processed, the power of attorney fee, executive fees and expenses must be determined together and the amount based on the borrower’s commitment must be clearly shown in the commitment minutes in order for the offense of violating the commitment to occur, a concrete execution trace file is given the same case in two separate agreements dated dated 12/02/2013 14/05/2014 commitment until the date of payment from the date of the creditor’s interest is not any sort of clarity about last will operate as waiver will operate until the date of payment of interest does not take the place of the declaration, for these reasons and the process of functioning and the amount of interest is shown separately in the report the commitment of both uncertainty exists, although we understand that the commitment is not valid because the defendant acquitted of the crime that had to be thrown on the elements due to avoid taking the Liberty, 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 on the grounds that no hits were seen in the decision to reject the appeal in writing, without regard to the fact that the decision to accept the appeal must be made.it was discussed and considered necessary to request that the decision referred to in accordance with the article be overturned for the benefit of the law:

CONCLUSION: Since the contents of the notice based on the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s request for violation for the benefit of the law are deemed to be in place as of this respect, in the examination conducted in terms of reason No. (2) of the request for violation for the benefit of the law, Alanya 1. Enforcement of the Criminal Court dated 13/02/2014 2013/957 based on the decision of the decision of the CPC and dated 17/11/2014 2014/104 2014/141 of different business 309/4-d according to Article CORRUPTION, blameworthy ( defendant ) in both files confinement pressure is given about the abolition of the request for reversal reversal in favor of the law by reason of ( 1 ) No. place to be decided in terms of cause it wasn’t on 16.03.2017 it’s unanimous.

 

T.C.
SUPREME
19. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
MAINLY NO:2017/1481
DECISION NO:2017/2585
DATE OF DECISION:22/03/2017

>VIOLATION OF THE OBLIGATION TO PAY, NON-EXPLICIT INDICATION OF INTEREST.

340 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code of 2004 of the defendant … for violating the borrower’s payment requirement. 3 months confinement pressure in accordance with the execution of punishment Criminal Court, dated 19/04/2016 2015/276 based on 2016/114 for the denial of objection to the decision of the Criminal Court against the decision of the executive … 25/05/2016 different business 2016/36 dated 25/01/2017 day of the Ministry of justice and the law in the case of the post that contains the prompt ruining the benefit of the attachments of the Supreme Court’s chief prosecutor 03/02/2017 day and KYB…. it was read by sending it to our apartment with a numbered notice.

In the above-mentioned notice;

According to the scope of the file, Article 340 of the Law No. 2004. in accordance with the commitment in the minutes of the formation of the crime of violation of the functioning of the process and committed to total debt amount, interest, attorneys ‘ fees, bailiff fees and costs are clearly displayed together with the commitment of the borrower, and the amount must be determined, which is essential since the payment commitment is given in Turkish lira 641,426,15 dated 03/07/2014 committed in interest, if the periods in which this interest is covered, from the date of execution proceedings incurred until the date of finalization of the commitment and commitment is of interest to process from the date of final payment until the date of clarity about whether or not any, although it is understood that the commitment is not valid because there is uncertainty due to the fact that the creditor’s statement of waiver of interest to be processed before the due date and the amount of interest to be processed for these reasons is not shown separately in the commitment minutes, the acceptance of the appeal must be decided due to the fact that the elements of the crime thrown out on the defendant are not formed, while the rejection of the written decision is not seen on the grounds of 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271. it was discussed and considered necessary to request that the decision referred to in accordance with the article be overturned for the benefit of the law;

Since the contents of the notice based on the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court of Cassation to overturn it for the benefit of the law are seen on the spot … CMK’s 309/4-d of the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 25/05/2016 and numbered 2016/36. according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 22/03/2017 to cancel the suspended imprisonment imposed on the misdemeanor for the act of violating the payment requirement.

 

Criminal Department 2014/13014 E. , 2014/13251 K.
On 05.05.2014 day and 21.05.2014 day and PUK, organized by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court in reference to the request of the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice to overturn the law No. 30083/2014/8857-30083 for the benefit of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Ministry of Justice. with the notification dated 2014/182797;

Accused of violation of the payment requirement N.. G.. as a result of the trial conducted against Bolu 1, he was acquitted. Acceptance of the appeal against the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 24/10/2013 and numbered 2013/6071, 2013/1172 and removal of the acquittal decision, 340 of the Law on Enforcement and Bankruptcy of the defendant No. 2004. according to Article 2 of the Bolu regarding the punishment of up to 3 months of suspended imprisonment. In the examination of the file covering the decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance dated 21/11/2013 and numbered 2013/632;

1- 2001/8 of the General Board of the Supreme Criminal Court dated 20.2.2001-19 and based on the decision of 2001/26 as stated in the crime of violation of this commitment to occur in order for the numerical determination of the total amount to be paid, the parties determined in the presence of ICAP and acceptance is required on the amount, this amount is deselected, which is the amount by which the amount that has been made for commitments made by well written and will not be detected since it will be born of criminal responsibility in case of violation of the conditions of payment, in a concrete case, although the amount of debt is actually 7,154.83 Turkish liras in the commitment minutes dated 14/02/2013, it is calculated as 7,166.68 Turkish liras to be against the debtor, the payment commitment is not legally valid,

2- Notification dated 18/12/2012 on the notification of the payment order to the debtor defendant, 9 and 23 of the Notification Law No. 7201 due to the fact that a valid address has not been written in accordance with legal supervision. it is invalid because it does not meet the conditions in the article,

3- Notification dated 22/02/2013 on the notification of the acceptance memorandum of commitment to the debtor defendant, due to the fact that it is the factory address of the Notification Law No. 7201 18. although it must be done according to the article, the notification made contrary to this situation is also invalid,

In this case, there is no failure to establish a provision in writing instead of rejecting the appeal without regard to the fact that the breakthrough crime did not occur, 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 with a bet. in accordance with the article, the aforementioned decision was requested to be overturned, but the file sent to our Department was examined and discussed as necessary:

According to the contents of the examined file, Bolu 2, as the thoughts in the notice are seen on the spot. Article 309 of CMK No. 5271 of the decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance dated 21.11.2013 and Amended Work No. 2013/632. it was unanimously decided on 03.07.2014 that the file should be TRANSFERRED to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court, since it is possible to decide on this issue in accordance with Article 309/4-d of the CMK, that the sentence of suspended imprisonment imposed on the defendant should not be carried out, and that the file should be TRANSFERRED to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

 

1.It is necessary to write down the debt feris one by one in the execution foreclosure report.

2.Payment dates and amounts should be clear and understandable

3.Approval and signature of the creditor or his/her proxy are required

4.If the commitment has been received by the lawyer’s clerk, the “commitment memorandum” must be notified before the first payment date.

5.A certificate of payments to the creditor or lawyer should be notified of the collection in the execution file

6.The actual amount of receivable in the execution file must be above the minimum wage

7.The borrower must write by hand that he accepts the commitment and sign to accept it

8.In calculations, interest calculations should be performed Decently when specifying installments

9.The commitment statement must be wet-signed in the execution file

10.A commitment penalty must be filed within 90 days from the day the installment is not paid.

 

You can read our other articles and supreme court decisions from clicking here.