Increasing The Price By Forging The Price Part Of The Promissory Note
T.C. JUDICIARY 11TH CRIMINAL CHAMBER E. 2013/755, K. 2015/22745, T. 23.02.2015
* THE LAWYER’S SUBMISSION OF A DEED THAT HE KNOWS HAS BEEN FALSIFIED ( Forgery of Official Documents – The Defendant Defends That He Did Not Know That The Deed Subject To The Crime Has Been Falsified / The Defendant Will Be Acquitted Since Evidence Other Than The Changing and Insincere Statements Of The Alleged Falsifier Has Not Been Obtained )
* INCREASING THE PRICE BY FALSIFYING THE PRICE PART OF THE DEED (Allegation that the Lawyer Committed the Crime of Forgery of Official Documents by Putting the Deed in the Prosecution Knowing that the Deed was Falsified – The Defendant Defended That He Did Not Know That the Deed Subject to the Crime was Falsified / Since No Evidence Other Than the Changing and Insincere Statements of the Person Alleged to Have Falsified the Deed Could Not Be Obtained, a Decision of Acquittal Should Be Given)
* FORGERY OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (Allegation that the Lawyer Committed the Crime of Forgery of Official Documents by Putting the Promissory Note in the Prosecution Knowing that the Promissory Note was Forged – The Defendant Defended That He Did Not Know That the Promissory Note Subject to the Crime was Forged / Decision of Acquittal Since Evidence Other Than the Changing and Insincere Statements of the Person Alleged to Have Forged the Promissory Note Could Not Be Obtained)
5237/m. 204
SUMMARY : A public case was filed with the allegation that the defendant, who is a lawyer, committed the offense of forgery of official documents by executing the deed knowing that the price was increased by falsifying the deed by his client. The defendant defended that he did not know that the deed subject to the crime was falsified at the stages. Apart from the abstract statement of his client, which changed at the stages and was not seen as sincere, it should be decided to acquit the defendant, considering that there is no evidence sufficient for the conviction of the defendant, concrete and beyond any doubt.
CASE : The file was examined and considered:
DECISION : 1- The defendant, who is a lawyer, as the representative of A. Y., the creditor A. Y., In the public case filed with the allegation that the defendant committed the crime of forgery of official documents by putting into execution a promissory note with a value of 2800 TL, the debtor of which is the victim A. Ö., knowing that the price was increased to 12.800 TL by falsifying the price part by A. Y., the defendant defended that he did not know that the promissory note subject to the crime was falsified at the stages, A. Y. Conviction of the defendant on insufficient grounds instead of acquittal, without considering that there was no evidence sufficient for the conviction of the defendant other than the abstract statement of Y., which changed at the stages and was not seen sincere,
2-According to the acceptance; the deprivation of rights written in paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, which is the legal consequence of the conviction of imprisonment for an intentional crime,
CONCLUSION : It was decided unanimously on the day of 23.02.2015 that the verdict be DISMISSED in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which should be applied in accordance with Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320 for these reasons, since it is contrary to the law and the defendant’s appellate objections are deemed appropriate in this respect.