Whether The Defendant Compensated For The Damage Caused By The Actions Of The Defendant Constituting Embezzlement
T.C. JUDICIARY
7th Criminal Chamber
Main: 2016/4980
Decision: 2016/9074
Date of Decision: 30.06.2016
OFFENSE OF EMBEZZLEMENT – WHETHER THE DEFENDANT COMPENSATED FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTING EMBEZZLEMENT – REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: While the court evaluates whether the defendant compensated the defendant for the damage caused by the defendant’s actions constituting embezzlement, the defendant …, which was allegedly received by the defendant … in the inspector’s report, but which was not subject to the indictment of the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office dated …, was improperly transferred to the account opened in the name of the depositor … and paid on the same day with a disbursement receipt … It is understood that the amount of damage arising from the transactions related to the amount of USD is also included in the scope of the evaluation, after the filing of a lawsuit in terms of transactions related to the amount of … USD, both case files should be combined and the legal status of the defendant should be determined and determined after all the evidence is evaluated together, while the judgment should be established with incomplete examination and investigation has required a reversal.
(5271 S. K. art. 231) (1412 S. K. art. 318)
Case: The judgment given by the local court was appealed; after the file was read according to the nature of the application, the type of punishment, the duration and the date of the crime, it was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation;
I) In the examination of the appeal request of the attorney of the participating bank against the decision to defer the announcement of the verdict given against the defendant …;
Pursuant to Article 231/12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 amended by the Law No. 5560 in force on the date of the verdict, the legal remedy of appeal against the decisions to defer the announcement of the verdict is open and the appeal of the decision is not possible, and it is understood from the content of the file that the objection was rejected by the objection authority upon the objection made, and the file was referred to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation for the return of the file without examination,
II) In the examination of the appeal requests of the defendant …defense counsel and the representative of the participating bank against the verdict on the defendant …judgment;
In the examination made by deciding to reject the request of the defendant …’s defense counsel for a trial review in accordance with Article 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which is in force pursuant to Article 8 of the Law No. 5320, since the request for a trial review was not deemed appropriate according to the type and amount of the sentence imposed;
While evaluating whether the court compensated the defendant for the damage caused by the defendant’s actions constituting embezzlement or not, the court has decided that the transaction regarding the amount of USD 35. 000 USD is also included in the scope of the evaluation, after the filing of a lawsuit in terms of the transactions related to the amount of 35.000 USD, both case files should be combined and the legal status of the defendant should be determined and determined after all the evidence is evaluated together, but to establish a written judgment with incomplete examination and investigation,
Since the appellate objections of the defendant ….defense counsel and the attorney of the participating bank were deemed appropriate in this respect, it was unanimously decided on 30.06.2016 to VACATE the verdict in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which is in force pursuant to Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320.