The Crime of Begging and Its Punishment

What is the Crime of Begging?

The crime of begging is defined in Article 229 of the Turkish Penal Code under the section titled “Crimes Against General Morality” as follows: “A person who uses children or individuals who are incapable of managing themselves physically or mentally as tools for begging shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years. If this crime is committed by third-degree relatives, including blood or in-law relatives, or by the spouse, the penalty is increased by half. If the crime is committed within the framework of organized activity, the penalty is doubled.”

Additionally, while the act of forcing someone to beg is defined as a crime, begging itself is not considered a crime and is addressed under the Misdemeanors Law, Article 33, as follows:

“A person engaging in begging shall be fined an administrative penalty of 1,406 Turkish Liras. Moreover, the income derived from begging shall be confiscated, and ownership shall be transferred to the public. In relation to this misdemeanor, the administrative fine and confiscation shall be decided by law enforcement officers or municipal police officers, while the decision to transfer ownership to the public shall be made by the local authorities or the municipal council.”

Elements of the Crime of Begging

According to the above-quoted provision, the crime of begging occurs when children or individuals with physical or mental disabilities are exploited for the purpose of begging, by taking advantage of others’ feelings of pity and compassion, resulting in unlawful gain. An example of this would be when a parent commits the crime of ill-treatment by making their child sell flowers to earn money; whereas if the parent encourages the child to beg for money, the crime of forcing the child into begging is committed.

The Punishment for the Crime of Begging

As stipulated in Article 229 of the Turkish Penal Code, the penalty for the crime of begging is determined to be imprisonment from 1 to 3 years. Therefore, if there is a strong belief in the existence of the crime, the perpetrator of the crime of begging is punished with a prison sentence ranging from 1 to 3 years.

Procedural Rules for Trial in the Crime of Begging

In criminal cases related to the crime of begging, the competent court is the court in the place where the crime was committed (Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code), while the responsible court is the criminal court of first instance. In this regard, the parties may need a criminal lawyer, specifically a criminal lawyer in Antalya, to file and follow the case.

Frequently Asked Questions

1.What is the Duration and Statute of Limitations for the Crime of Begging?

Since the crime of begging is investigated ex officio by the prosecutor’s office, there is no complaint period for this offense. The crime of begging can always be investigated, provided that it complies with the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for the crime of begging is 8 years, and once this period expires, no investigation can be conducted.

2.Can There Be a Settlement in the Crime of Begging?

Legally, a settlement means that the person suspected of committing a crime and the victim reach an agreement through a mediator. However, the crime of begging is not among the offenses that fall under the scope of settlement.

3.What Are the Aggravated Forms of the Crime of Enabling Begging?

The crime of begging, or enabling begging, has two aggravated forms as regulated by the legislator in Article 229 of the Turkish Penal Code. The first aggravated form is when the crime is committed by a third-degree relative, including blood or in-law relatives, or a spouse, in which case the penalty is increased by half. The second aggravated form occurs when the crime is committed as part of an organized criminal activity, in which case the penalty is increased by one degree.

4.Can a Decision for the Suspension of the Pronouncement of Judgment (HAGB) be Given in the Crime of Begging?

The decision to postpone the pronouncement of the judgment (HAGB) is essentially a decision that ensures the sentence given to the defendant does not have legal effect within a certain probationary period. If the defendant, who has been granted the HAGB decision, fulfills certain conditions during the probation period, the sentence is annulled, and thus the case is dropped. Regarding the crime of begging, if the sentence given is 2 years or less, an HAGB decision may be granted to the defendant (provided other conditions are also met).

5.Can the Crime of Begging Be Converted into a Judicial Fine?

A judicial fine is a type of sanction that can be applied either in conjunction with a prison sentence or on its own in response to a committed crime. Accordingly, the prison sentence imposed for the crime of begging can be converted into a judicial fine, provided that the sentence is 1 year or less.

Some Court of Cassation Decisions Regarding the Crime of Begging

1. “According to Article 20/2 of the Law No. 6284 on the Protection of Family and the Prevention of Violence Against Women, since there is no information or document regarding the notification of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, which may be affected by the potential harm related to the use of children in begging, and no document regarding the notification of the judgment in the absence of the Ministry, if available, it should be placed in the file. Otherwise, the judgment given in the absence should be delivered to the mentioned institution, and the notification document, and if appealed, the petition should be added, and after preparing the supplementary notification, it should be returned. If no appeal is filed, the file should be sent back to the Court of Cassation’s Chief Public Prosecutor for examination, and a decision was made unanimously on 16.03.2017.” (Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, Decision No. 2016/11533, 2017/2701, dated 16.03.2017).
2. “According to the file contents and the collected evidence, it has been determined that the defendants committed the alleged crime by using their children, Kadir and Kanber, who are first-degree blood relatives, as instruments in begging. Therefore, it should have been considered that their sentences should be increased by half in accordance with Article 229/2 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK No. 5237). However, since no appeal was made against the insufficient sentence imposed by the court in the written form, this was not considered as a ground for reversal, and other appeals were not found to be valid according to the case file. However, regarding the alleged begging offense, it is a legal obligation to evaluate whether the pronouncement of the sentence should be deferred in accordance with Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, depending on the type and duration of the sentences. This necessitated the reversal of the decision. The defendants’ appeal was found to be valid for this reason, and thus the judgment was REVERSED for this reason, contrary to the request.” (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber, Decision No. 2011/13375, 2012/46101, dated 15.11.2012).
3. “The defendant, who is officially recorded as unmarried, along with a child, who is estimated to be around 9-10 years old at the time of the incident and whose birth is not registered in the population registry, committed theft from a house they entered together. When descending the stairs, the defendant encountered the witness, who then gave money to the defendant after hearing him say ‘help me’. Considering the statements of the witness and the defense of the defendant, it was determined without hesitation that the defendant made the child (referred to as ‘small’ in the document) beg and/or used him as an instrument for this purpose. The judgment was made with an insufficient and inappropriate reasoning without a thorough investigation of the facts. 2-According to the acceptance: The real age of the child at the time of the incident was not determined, and the blood relation (kinship) between the defendant and the child was not clearly established, and the case continued without this determination. This necessitated the reversal of the judgment. The appeal by the defendant’s lawyer was found to be valid, and therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment was REVERSED in contradiction with the request.” (Court of Cassation, 6th Criminal Chamber, Decision No. 2010/7644, 2013/5854, dated 19.03.2013).
4. “The judgment given by the local court was appealed, and the case file was reviewed and the necessary consideration was made. According to the case details, the defendant’s confession during the proceedings, the statement of the witness M. C. taken by the police, and the entire file; on the day of the incident, the defendant, while pushing the mentally ill victim in a wheelchair, sang religious songs and asked for money from passing people. Instead of convicting the defendant for the crime of begging, the court made a written decision to acquit the defendant, which was against the law. Therefore, the appeal made by the plaintiff’s attorney was found to be valid, and in accordance with Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 1412, the judgment was REVERSED.” (Court of Cassation, 14th Criminal Chamber, Decision No. 2013/414, 2014/10702, dated 30.09.2014).
5. “As for the appeal review of the judgment given for the defendant regarding the crime of begging; the defendant, who made his victims, who are his biological children aged 10 and 11, sell handkerchiefs, committed the crime of ill-treatment under Article 232/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). It should have been decided that the sentence should be given for as many victims as there are, instead of making a single decision due to a mistake in the nature of the crime. Additionally, the defendant, who committed his actions by abusing the power outlined in Article 53/1-c of the TCK, should have been subjected to Article 53/5 of the same Code. Moreover, the examples showing the finalization and enforcement dates of the judgments in the defendant’s criminal record, which are the basis for recidivism, should have been obtained and the recidivism-related previous convictions should have been checked. Without considering these aspects, the decision was made in writing, which is against the law. The defendant’s and the local public prosecutor’s appeal objections were found to be valid, and therefore, in accordance with Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412, the judgment was REVERSED.” (Court of Cassation, 14th Criminal Chamber, Decision No. 2013/423, 2014/10613, dated 29.09.2014).
6. “In the appeal review of the judgment given for the juvenile regarding the crime of begging; the rejection of the other objections raised in the appeal, which were found to be invalid, is noted. However, since the juvenile committed the crime against multiple persons with a single act as part of executing a decision to commit a crime, instead of imposing a single penalty in accordance with Article 43/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and making an increase under Article 43/2 of the same Law, the written judgment imposed two separate penalties, which is against the Law. The juvenile’s defense counsel’s appeal objections were found to be valid, and therefore, for this reason, the judgment was REVERSED in accordance with Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMUK).” (Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, Decision No. 2015/6375, 2016/308, dated 13.01.2016).

Views: 3