T.C. SUPREME COURT<\/p>\n
7.Criminal Department
\nBase: 2016\/4980
\nDecision: 2016\/9074
\nDate of Decision: 30.06.2016<\/p>\n
EMBEZZLEMENT CRIME – WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS COMPENSATED FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT’S EMBEZZLING ACTIONS – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION<\/p>\n
SUMMARY: the damage resulting from embezzlement by the court that the defendant acts which constitute matter when assessing whether you have been compensated by the defendant, the defendant alleged in the report, taken by the inspector, however, is not the case with the indictment of the Chief Public Prosecutor of Ankara investors apparently improperly transferred and the account in your name with the receipt for the amount paid on the same day payment USD operations are included in the scope of the evaluation of the amount of damage resulting from it being understood that, … The amount of USD aspect of the process for both merged with all the evidence to the case file after the opening of the case following the assessment, the defendant should be able to determine the legal status ruled to overturn the establishment of review and investigation by missing when required.<\/p>\n
(5271 Pp. K. m. 231) (1412 P. K. m. 318)<\/p>\n
Case: The sentence given by the local court was appealed and the application was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation after the file was read according to the nature, type of punishment, duration and date of the crime;<\/p>\n
I)In the examination of the request of the participating bank’s deputy to appeal against the decision to withdraw the disclosure of the judgment given about the accused …;<\/p>\n
CMK No. 5271 as amended by the Law No. 5560 in force at the date of its provision.231\/12 of the.according to the article paragraph, the way of appeal against decisions to withdraw the disclosure of the provision is open to the law and the appeal of the decision is not possible, the appeal authority also rejected the appeal upon appeal, as can be understood from the contents of the file, the file was transferred to the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court for the return of the file without examination,<\/p>\n
II) In the examination of the defendant … defense counsel and the participating bank attorney’s requests for an appeal against the verdict against the defendant …;<\/p>\n
According to the type and amount of the sentence imposed, the defendant … 8 of Law 5320, because the defense’s request for a judicial review was not considered appropriate. article 318 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force in accordance with its article. in the examination conducted by deciding to reject it in accordance with the article;<\/p>\n
The damage resulting from embezzlement by the court that the defendant acts which constitute matter when assessing whether you have been compensated by the defendant, the defendant alleged in the report was taken by the inspector, but the Ankara chief prosecutor’s indictment 15.04.2002 investors apparently is not the case with improperly transferred the account in your name and on the same day the payment receipt for the amount paid with USD 35.000 operations are included in the scope of the evaluation of the amount of damage resulting from it being understood that, After filing a lawsuit regarding the transactions for the amount of 35,000 USD, both case files were combined and all the evidence was evaluated together, then the defendant’s legal status should be determined and determined, while incomplete examination and investigation and written judgment should be established,<\/p>\n
Contrary to the law, since the appeals of the defendant’s defense counsel and the participating bank’s attorney have been considered in place as of this date, the provision is 8\/1 of the Law No. 5320.article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force in accordance with its article.according to the article, the BREAKDOWN was decided, unanimously, on 30.06.2016.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME COURT 7.Criminal Department Base: 2016\/4980 Decision: 2016\/9074 Date of Decision: 30.06.2016 EMBEZZLEMENT CRIME – WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS COMPENSATED FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT’S EMBEZZLING ACTIONS – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION SUMMARY: the damage resulting from embezzlement by the court that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[211],"tags":[217,223,220,218,1165],"yoast_head":"\n