30 Jan The Action Constitutes a Total Crime Of Fraud
T.C SUPREME COURT
6.Criminal Division
Basis: 2018 / 3052
Verdict: 2018 / 7548
Decision Date: 04.12.2018
Case: 1. 26.02.2018 day of the Heavy Criminal Court, 2017/825 basis and 2018/102 decision no. against the conviction sentence given for looting, the defendant … and his defense, CMK 272 and subsequent articles in accordance with the Appeal law; Ankara District Court 15. 22.06.2018 days, 2018/1464 basis and 2018/1087 decision no. “fundamental rejection by correcting except criticism” against the decision, the defendant’s defense duly filed the appeal case, the issues that are alleged to be illegal in the appeal petition and the issues that need to be examined by CMK 288 and 289. he was examined and interviewed under the articles;
Other appeals have not been seen in place.
But;
The act of a person who obliges him not to resist the delivery or receipt of a property by threatening or using algebra with a bet that someone else will commit an attack on the life, body and sexual immunity of himself or a relative, or cause great damage to his assets, constitutes a crime of looting. In other words, if the consent of the victim is provided by the algebra and threat of the perpetrator and/or the perpetrators, this crime occurs. The main feature of the crime of looting is the receipt of goods by Algebra, violence or threat. In other words, the bell must be taken from the hands of the goods or force the goods to be seized by the perpetrator.
The threat must be of the size sought in the crime of looting in terms of quality and quantity.
In the crime of fraud, it is that the person deceives someone by fraudulent behavior and benefits them or someone else by executive or negligent behavior as a harm to them or someone else.
Fraud is not just a crime against assets. It is an offence to protect property as well as freedom of Will and decision-making. In the crime of fraud, the victim is misled. So the crime of fraud is a typical crime of cheating. The Will is deceived by deception. Cunning actions that make a victim mistake are a trick. Even if every trick is an immoral act, it must make the interlocutor error as specified in the type of crime, so that there is always a fraud that is punished. Error is that the person’s imagination and the truth do not match each other, cheating: it will create a state of error in the victim. Strengthening the hesitation in the victim also makes him a mistake.
A trick has to be deceiving. If the victim’s condition is taken into account and the relationship with the perpetrator has been deceived, the action on the basis of the incident will be fraud.
A lie is a deliberate declaration of an untrue matter, a lie is an abuse of trust in society. A liar is someone who abuses the trust and goodwill of the interlocutor. Mujerret lies are not considered cheating unless the perpetrator makes an act that will prevent the control of the lie he is telling or force the detection of the lie. A lie is a means of abuse of trust if the applicant is obliged to tell the truth. If a lie is told to have an effect on a person, it can be treated as a trick. The lie must be laid out in an environment of trust that eliminates the possibility of supervision of the victim, the perpetrator must have drawn the victim in the direction he wants. Mujerret lies do not constitute the trick that is the characteristic element of fraud. Whether the trick is deceiving should be evaluated by event. The characteristics of the event, the condition of the victim, the relationship with the perpetrator, the form of the trick used, should also be determined by looking at whether the lie has the ability to control it.
Visions of future gain to be provided to the victim, such as emotional or spiritual damage, cannot be a material element of this crime, nor does it constitute an objective element of this crime in cases where it is objectively impossible to examine and determine.
Each act of fraud begins with deceptive acts planned by the perpetrator, and this deceptive act fundamentally violates the rules of goodwill and trust in the relationship of people with each other.
It is also necessary to make deceptive movements that will make the victim error, and to find a causal link between the deductible error and deceptive movements. The basic form of the crime of fraud is 157 of TCK 5237. it is stated in the articles. In light of the norms of the law regulated in relation to crimes of looting, threats and fraud,
As for the concrete event;
Participating …’s the number of fixed and mobile phone number … “chief of police” as identified by an unknown person search for “money in the bank whether it is” asking the attendee’s “in the Bank of $ 50,000, a benefit that is to say,” this time an unidentified person on the phone“, because the cash is immediately transferred to the account you want to transfer money to a secure account by FETO if you detention for itself by the relevant officers, Bank Officers will be made of the operation for the money to come out and to give to the police of emergency, otherwise it will be taken into custody and put in prison, home next all the goods that they would take himself and the cop would put you in jail,” he said, worry and fear from this situation without the ability to check the attendee at the branch of the bank account the money away from the bank, from TL 50.500 out from his side …the defendant’s “you were a cop,… Bey was sent to get the money by saying,” the attendee with the money given to the defendant TL 50.500 in this process in person, on the phone, the phone is not switched off, the instructions given on the attendee’s he figured it out when I get home, considering that the defendant was caught on the bus going to …with the money he received from the participant; the defendant’s action in order to reach his assets by crippling his will with a discourse that the participant could not control about the incident was mistaken in the nature of the crime, without thinking that it constituted the crime of fraud in general,
Because the appeals of the defendant’s defense were considered in this regard, the Ankara District Court of justice for the reason described 15.22.06.2018 days, 2018/1464 basis and 2018/1087 decision no.5271 of the basis rejection provision 302/2 of the CMK. article and paragraph in accordance with the violation of the communiqué, 04/12/2018 was decided by unanimous decision.
No Comments