What is the Crime of False Expertise or Interpretation?
The crime of false expertise or interpretation is regulated in Article 276 of the Turkish Penal Code as follows:
“(1) If an expert assigned by judicial authorities or by a person or board authorized to conduct a legal investigation or to examine witnesses under oath provides a false opinion, they shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three to seven years.
(2) If an interpreter assigned by the persons or boards mentioned in the first paragraph translates statements or documents falsely, the provision of the first paragraph shall apply.”
Accordingly, it is understood from the above-cited law that the crime of false expertise or interpretation occurs when an expert or interpreter deliberately distorts the truth or performs an incorrect translation.
Penalty for the Crime of False Expertise or Interpretation
Under Article 276, paragraph 1 of the Turkish Penal Code, a person who commits the crime of false expertise or interpretation is punished by the court with imprisonment ranging from 3 to 7 years.
Statute of Limitations for the Crime of False Expertise or Interpretation
The crime of false expertise or interpretation can be investigated at any time, provided the statute of limitations is observed. Accordingly, it is known that the statute of limitations for this crime is 15 years. Therefore, once the relevant limitation period has expired, it is no longer possible to conduct an investigation.
Competent and Authorized Court in the Crime of False Expertise or Interpretation
In criminal cases concerning the crime of false expertise or interpretation, the competent court is the court of the place where the crime was committed (according to Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code), while the authorized court is the Court of First Instance. In this context, the parties may require a criminal lawyer, such as a criminal attorney in Antalya, to file and follow up on the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can a Conditional Suspension of the Sentence Be Granted in the Crime of False Expert or Interpreter Testimony?
The conditional suspension of the sentence (HAGB) is a decision that ensures that a prison sentence of 2 years or less imposed on the defendant does not produce legal effects or consequences during the specified probation period. Accordingly, if the defendant fulfills certain conditions within the probation period, the imposed sentence is nullified, and the case is dropped. However, due to the minimum penalty of 3 years for the crime of false expert or interpreter testimony, it should be noted that a HAGB decision cannot be granted for the offender in such cases.
2. Can the Crime of False Expert or Interpreter Testimony Be Converted into a Judicial Fine?
In Turkish criminal law, a judicial fine is a type of sanction that can be applied either together with or instead of a prison sentence imposed for a committed crime. Furthermore, the imposition of a judicial fine depends on the crime being committed intentionally and the sentence imposed on the offender being less than one year. As a result, due to the minimum penalty of three years, it is not possible to convert the crime of false expert or interpreter testimony into a judicial fine.
3. Is the Crime of False Expert or Interpreter Testimony a Complaint-Based Offense?
Legally, the crime of false expert or interpreter testimony is not considered a complaint-based offense. It is investigated ex officio by the public prosecutor, and therefore, there is no specific complaint period required.
4. Is Reconciliation Possible in the Crime of False Expert or Interpreter Testimony?
Reconciliation essentially aims to establish communication and reach an agreement between the accused and the victim through mediation. However, the crime of false expert or interpreter testimony is not among the offenses eligible for reconciliation.
Some Supreme Court Decisions Regarding the Crime of False Expert or Interpreter Testimony
- However; considering that there were two prior expert reports regarding the incident in question, and although the first report attributed no fault to the victim, the second report assigned 3/8 fault to the victim, and that the report was prepared based on the second report as a result of the defendants’ expert evaluation, and that the crime of false expert testimony must be committed intentionally with knowledge that the opinion is false, establishing a conviction against the defendants with insufficient reasoning is contrary to the law. Since the appeal grounds of the defendants … and their attorneys, … and …, were deemed valid, the decision to affirm is rejected, and the VERDICTS ARE REVERSED, and the file is remitted to the trial/court of first instance to continue and conclude the proceedings from the stage prior to the reversal. The decision was made unanimously on 11.06.2012. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 4th Criminal Chamber, 11.06.2012, Case No. 2011/12424, Decision No. 2012/14551)
- In the concrete case; since the Bodrum 1st Enforcement Office, where the defendant was appointed as an expert and gave an opinion, cannot be considered a judicial authority or a person/board legally authorized to conduct an investigation or hear a witness under oath as listed in Article 276/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the proven act of the defendant constitutes a crime under Article 257/1 of the TCK. The legal situation should have been assessed and determined accordingly, but due to a misclassification of the crime, a written conviction was issued. 2- Additionally, according to the accepted application; during the conversion of the imposed prison sentence into a judicial fine, the legal article applied to determine the daily amount was not indicated in the decision. This is contrary to the law. Since the appeal grounds of the defendant’s counsel were found valid, the verdict is REVERSED for these reasons. The decision was made by majority vote on 11.06.2014. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 9th Criminal Chamber, 11.06.2014, Case No. 2013/13377, Decision No. 2014/7161)
- 1- By instigating the defendant …, who was appointed as an expert by the Consumer Arbitration Committee, to prepare a materially false report and ensuring the inclusion of a forged signature on the report in the file, purportedly on behalf of the Provincial Director of Industry and Commerce, the act of the defendant does not constitute the crime regulated under Article 276/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), since the Consumer Arbitration Committee is not a judicial authority or a person/body legally authorized to conduct investigations or hear witnesses under oath. However, considering that the expert defendant … is deemed a public official under Article 6/1-c of the TCK and prepared the report in the course of his duties, and given that the report is materially false and contains a forged receipt signature, which must be accepted as an official document, the defendant’s act falls under the offense of forgery of an official document as regulated in Article 204/1 of the TCK, in conjunction with Articles 38/1 and 40/2 of the TCK. The original document should have been obtained and evaluated for susceptibility to deception before determining the defendant’s legal situation. Instead, due to a misclassification of the crime, a written conviction was issued. This is contrary to the law. Since the appeal grounds of the defendant’s counsel were found valid, the verdict is REVERSED for these reasons, while preserving any acquired rights regarding the resulting penalty. The decision was made unanimously on 08.10.2015. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 16th Criminal Chamber, 08.10.2015, Case No. 2015/3170, Decision No. 2015/4222)
- In the concrete case, it was alleged that the defendants, who served as local experts during the cadastral survey studies, carried out false expert evaluations while preparing the cadastral records and thereby transferred village pastures to themselves and their relatives. Considering this, the assessment and evaluation of evidence regarding whether the act constitutes the crime of “false expert testimony” as stipulated in Article 276 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) falls within the jurisdiction of the higher-level criminal court. Therefore, a decision of lack of jurisdiction should have been issued. Instead, the trial continued and a written decision was rendered, which is contrary to the law. Since the appeal grounds of the Public Prosecutor were found justified, and other aspects of the ruling were not examined, the judgment is REVERSED in accordance with Article 321 of the former Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412, as applied pursuant to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, as requested. The decision was made unanimously on 07.03.2016. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 21st Criminal Chamber, 07.03.2016, Case No. 2015/7023, Decision No. 2016/2101)
- In the concrete case, the defendant, who served as a court clerk in family courts, was appointed as an expert to analyze a CD containing audio and video submitted to the court by the plaintiff in a divorce case, despite not having expertise in this matter. However, due to the woman in the video speaking in … language, the parts that were not understood were recorded in the report as “unintelligible words.” Accordingly, considering that the defendant did not have specialized training or expertise in audio analysis and it was not established that he intentionally committed the alleged crime, the decision to convict him instead of acquitting him is contrary to the law. Since the appeals of both the defendant and the plaintiff were found justified, the judgment is REVERSED in accordance with Article 6 of the former Criminal Procedure Code (CMUK), as applied pursuant to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. The decision was made unanimously on 16.09.2020. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber, 16.09.2020, Case No. 2017/14680, Decision No. 2020/15622)
