16 Apr THE CRIME OF SMUGGLING-THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
T.C.
SUPREME COURT
7. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
Base. 2014/15102 Decision 2014/14597 Date 8.7.2014
CASE: The sentence given by the local court was appealed and the application was discussed and considered as necessary after the file was read according to the nature, type of punishment, duration and date of the crime:
DECISION : the Supreme Court’s chief prosecutor’s objection was considered 7-2011-152425 date and numbered in 1.5.2014, since our apartment with the acceptance of the appeal 19.2.2014 2013/2164 date and based on the decision made by the decision of removing 2014/3780;
1- ) On the date of the crime, the defendant’s action is trafficking as provided for in Article 3/5 of Law No. 5607 in terms of smuggled sugars, as well as in addition to October 5/1 of Law No. 5015 in terms of smuggled fuel oil. since it constitutes the crime regulated in Article 5237 of the Turkish Commercial Code.nun 44. according to the article is to transport fuel due to the defendant’s sugar and only the actual most severe penalty should be punished in accordance with Law No. 5015 additional felony convictions in two separate writing when deciding 5/1,
2- ) According to the acceptance as well;
a- ) Article 58 of the Turkish Commercial Code on the accused who has been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three months for the main intentional crime of repetition. decision to postpone the prison sentence convicted of opposition to law No. 5015 despite the fact that the article was not implemented and there was an obstacle to postponement,
b- ) The goods subject to the case do not constitute the entire or weighted part of the goods in terms of quantity or volume according to the load of the transport vehicle, and the value of the smuggled goods and the value of the means of transport decided to confiscate, taking into account the confiscation of TCK 5237.nun 54/3. in accordance with the article, it is decided to confiscate the transport vehicle instead of returning it, taking into account that it will be contrary to justice,
CONCLUSION: Contrary to the law, since the defendant’s appeals have been considered in place as of this date, the provision is 8/1 of Law No. 5320. CMUK No. 1412, which is in force in accordance with its article.No. 321. it was unanimously decided on 08.07.2014 that the VIOLATION in accordance with article 2-a of the defendant’s right to be punished in accordance with CMUK 326 / last article should be respected for the reason of violation No. 2-a.
No Comments