T.C THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
15.Criminal Department
Base: 2017/ 35155
Decision: 2018 / 1282
Date of Decision: 26.02.2018

The suspects of the crime of forgery and breach of trust … and … given the inquiry made about them at the end of phase Republican dated 04.01.2016 2014/6022 investigation bassavciliginc Konya, Konya appeals against the decision on whether to prosecute the authority for the denial 2016/104 No. 1. Magistrates ‘ Bench, dated 10.03.2016 different business issued by the Ministry of justice against the decision of the high 2016/808 22.05.2017 day and based on the demand of ruining 94660652-105-42-3882-2017 the benefit of the law, the public prosecutor of the court of Appeals and the case file No. 05.06.2017 day it was read with a constant 2017/34497 tebligname being sent to our apartment.

In the communiqué requesting to be overturned for the benefit of the law;

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

By the client … on 26/07/2013 Konya 8. Four days after the date of issue of the power of attorney, the suspect is committed to serve the remaining Agricultural Livestock to the deceased clients by abusing this power of attorney at the notary’s office of the suspect, and the suspect is committed four days after the date of issue of the power of attorney. and tic. Ltd. Şti.’what 1.250.000,00 500 shares of the value of the Turkish lira, the other suspect who the father is …’Rev E dated by the decision 30/07/2013 contained within the file is transferred and the transfer is not obtained the consent of the complainant, without an agreement on this suspicious …’s received the statement, “…the agreement between us about how the company transferred me to be not only wanted to get rid of the celebration…” tevilli profess, in the form of AS, which were carried out again by the deceased alleged that issued 25/12/2012, Dated 31/05/2013 payment 500.000,00 25/06/2015 dated securities held relating to the value of the Turkish lira Forensic Medicine Institution report, in summary, three different pens on the bill in question is used where pre-arranged using a pencil of a portion of the amount that was written with the type of the chapter “besyuzbin” in his article “face” in the phrase congestion, “bin” in the phrase is stated to be one of the diversity of available location in the file 12/02/2014 graphology experts from the expert’s report, different pens used in the summary in the stocks mentioned, “five thousand” of the article “the face” by adding “besyuzbin” as tahrifatyapild where being deleted with type and letters and numbers that indicated the presence of the remains of the numbers belong to described above of evidence about the opening of a criminal case on the grounds that she suspects that require nature of this evidence should be evaluated and appreciated by disregarding the objections that the acceptance of the tribunal, instead of hitting the denial must be in writing, has not been seen in deciding whether, No. 5271 CMK 309. violation of the decision referred to in accordance with the article was notified on the basis of a request to violate the need for the benefit of the law.

IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY: Konya 1, as the thought in the notice issued for the benefit of the law is seen in its place. Article 309 of the CMK No. 5271 of the decision of the Magistrate’s Office dated 10.03.2016 and amended business No. 2016/808. according to article 4 of the same article, it may DETERIORATE. it was unanimously decided on 26.02.2018 that the subsequent actions in accordance with paragraph (a) should be carried out by the appeal authority.