The crime of counterfeiting currency is defined in Article 197 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK).
Article 197:
(1) A person who produces, imports, transports, stores, or circulates counterfeit currency, whether within the country or in foreign countries, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of two to twelve years and a judicial fine up to ten thousand days.
(2) A person who knowingly accepts counterfeit currency shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of one to three years and a judicial fine.
(3) A person who, without knowing the counterfeit’s nature, accepts counterfeit currency and later circulates it knowing its fraudulent nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of three months to one year.
In accordance with the relevant articles, the commission of this crime has been categorized into three forms, and separate penalties have been imposed for each. The crime of importing, transporting, storing, or circulating counterfeit currency is distinct from the crime of accepting counterfeit currency or circulating counterfeit currency that comes into one’s possession.
Investigation of the Crime
The crime of forgery of money is not a complaint-dependent offense. This crime falls within the scope of offenses that will be prosecuted ex officio by the public prosecutor. Therefore, it is not subject to any specific time limit. The investigation can be conducted within the statute of limitations period. According to Article 197/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, the standard statute of limitations for prosecutions is 15 years, while for prosecutions under Articles 197/2-3 of the Turkish Penal Code, the standard statute of limitations is 8 years.
Subject to reconciliation
The crime of counterfeiting money is not a type of offense subject to reconciliation.
The mental element of the crime.
The crime of forgery of money, due to its typicality in the law, cannot be committed through negligence. This is because, in this type of offense, the perpetrator must be aware that the money is counterfeit and act with this knowledge. Therefore, general intent is required for the crime of forgery of money, and only in this way can the crime be committed.
Effective remorse
Article 201;
(1) A person who produces, imports, transports, stores, or accepts counterfeit money or valuable stamps, and before these counterfeit money or valuable stamps are circulated and before the authorities are informed, informs the relevant authority about the other accomplices and the places where the counterfeit money or valuable stamps are produced or stored, and if the information leads to the capture of the accomplices and the seizure of the counterfeit money or valuable stamps, they shall not be sentenced to a penalty.
(2) A person who unlawfully produces, imports, sells, transfers, buys, accepts, or stores the tools and materials used in the production of counterfeit money or valuable stamps, and before the authorities are informed, informs the relevant authority about the other accomplices and the places where the materials are produced or stored, and if the information leads to the capture of the accomplices and the seizure of the materials, they shall not be sentenced to a penalty.
The principle of repentance before being informed by the authorities, which forms the basis of the effective remorse provision, also applies to this offense. It is specified in the law that a person who reports the location of the counterfeit money or the tools used for its production to the authorities before the counterfeit money is circulated, and facilitates the capture of the criminal elements and perpetrators, shall not be sentenced to a penalty.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SUPREME COURT 8th CRIMINAL CHAMBER
Case: 2016/12916
Decision: 2018/199
Date: 11.01.2018
Turkish Penal Code Article 197
Crime of Forgery of Money
The defendant … was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment and a judicial fine of 6,000 Turkish Lira, pursuant to Article 37 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, in relation to Articles 197/1 and 52/2…3 of the same code, for the crime of forgery of money, as per the decision of the Adıyaman 1st High Criminal Court dated 28.03.2013, with case number 2012/203 and decision number 2013/131;
The defendant … was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment and a judicial fine of 500 Turkish Lira, pursuant to Articles 197/1 and 52/2 of Law No. 5237, for the crime of forgery of money, as per the decision of the Istanbul Anadolu 4th High Criminal Court dated 17/06/2013, with case number 2012/459 and decision number 2013/202;
The defendant … was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment and a judicial fine of 10,000 Turkish Lira, pursuant to Articles 197/1 and 52/1…2 of Law No. 5237, for the crime of forgery of money, as per the decision of the Bandırma High Criminal Court dated 11/10/2013, with case number 2013/38 and decision number 2013/215;
Regarding the cases of the defendant related to the same offense committed on 09.07.2012, a public case was opened by the Adıyaman Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, with the indictment issued on 01.10.2012, under investigation number 2012/6795, case number 2012/2401, and indictment number 2012/157. Since forgery of money is a continuous offense, the legal interruption occurred with the filing of the indictment. To prevent the defendant from being punished twice for the same offense, it should have been considered that the file from the Adıyaman 1st High Criminal Court, case number 2012/203 and decision number 2013/131, where the indictment was already filed, should have been consolidated. However, since the decision was made separately for each of the three files, it was found inappropriate.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, the need for the decision to be overturned was raised based on the appeal for the benefit of the law, filed by the Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of Criminal Affairs, on 29.11.2016, with document number 2016/1936, and referred to our Chamber by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation, on 13.12.2016, with file number KYB/2016…395001, and the case was examined.
The Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber
Case No: 2016/14148
Decision No: 2017/8066
Date: 06.06.2017
Article 197 of the Turkish Penal Code
Crime of Forgery of Money
1-) In the examination of the appeal objections regarding the conviction for the crime of intentional injury against the defendant;
According to Article 86/2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, the crime of intentional injury is within the scope of reconciliation; however, since it was committed together with the crime of putting counterfeit money into circulation, which is not within the scope of reconciliation according to Article 253/3 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, it was not agreed with the opinion of overturning the conviction for the crime of intentional injury.
Although some provisions of Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 were annulled by the Constitutional Court’s decision published in the Official Gazette on 24.11.2015, with the decision numbered 2014/140 and 2015/85, this issue was not made a reason for overturning as it can be taken into account at the execution stage.
In light of the trial, the evidence collected and explained in the decision, the conviction and discretion formed by the court in the outcome of the prosecution, the reasons provided, and the application, the defendant’s appeal objections are rejected, and the judgment is UPHELD contrary to the request.
2- )In the examination of the defendant’s appeal objections regarding the conviction for the crime of knowingly putting into circulation money that was accepted without knowing it was counterfeit;
a) When the judgment was made regarding the crime of counterfeiting money, it was overlooked that the defendant’s actions could constitute the crime of circulating counterfeit money under Article 197/1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. Therefore, instead of issuing a decision of lack of jurisdiction, the trial was continued and the decision was made in writing.
b) According to the acceptance; due to the annulment of certain provisions in Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 by the Constitutional Court’s ruling dated 08.10.2015, published in the Official Gazette No. 29542 on 24.11.2015 (2014/140 Esas – 2015/85 Karar), there is a necessity to re-evaluate the defendant’s legal status regarding deprivation of rights.
RESULT: The decision to overturn was required, and since the defendant’s appeal objections were found to be valid, the judgment was overturned for these reasons, in accordance with Article 33 of Law No. 6723, amended by Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, and Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, as currently in force, and the defendant’s accrued rights concerning the sentence were preserved according to Article 326/last. The decision was made unanimously on 06.06.2017.
Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2016/10425, Decision No. 2017/5981
Crime of Counterfeiting Money
Article 197 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK)
Based on the facts and the case file; on 27/06/2013, the defendant I.Y., who was caught while attempting to sell 140 quarter gold coins and 34 half gold coins at a jewelry shop owned by witness F. in Elazığ, and later acquitted, stated that he had bought 140 quarter gold coins and 34 half gold coins from the defendants who were involved in the jewelry business in Osmaniye and that he had exchanged some of these quarter gold coins in Ankara. However, since the amount of counterfeit gold coins seized was exactly 140 quarter coins and 34 half coins, and considering the 10-day period between the date the gold was taken from the defendants’ workplace and the sale, as well as the fact that the defendant was engaged in buying and selling gold in different provinces, it was concluded that there was insufficient and credible evidence to determine whether the seized gold coins were indeed the ones taken from the defendants’ workplace. Therefore, instead of a conviction, the defendants should have been acquitted in accordance with the principle of benefiting from doubt.
Views: 0
