The effective, fair, and reliable operation of public services is only possible when individuals provide accurate information during official procedures. Making false statements disrupts the functioning of public institutions and undermines societal trust. In particular, misleading declarations made in connection with official documents hinder the proper functioning of legal processes. The Turkish Penal Code defines this act as the “crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document” and addresses it under Article 206.
In this article, we will examine the definition, elements, conditions, and criminal aspects of the offense of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document.
WHAT IS AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT?
An official document is any type of paper or record prepared to ensure public trust and the orderly conduct of legal transactions, and which is approved or certified by official authorities.
LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE CRIME
The crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document is regulated under Article 206 of the Turkish Penal Code, titled “Crimes Against Public Trust.” This provision was introduced to protect social trust and ensure the proper functioning of legal and administrative processes. The relevant article of the law states:
Turkish Penal Code, Article 206 – (1) A person who makes a false statement to a public official authorized to issue an official document shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to two years or with a judicial fine.
It is explicitly stated that making a false statement to a public official authorized to issue an official document constitutes a criminal offense.
CONDITIONS OF THE CRIME
As explicitly stated in the article text, certain conditions must be met for this crime to occur. These conditions are:
1- The perpetrator’s statement must directly lead to the creation of the official document without verification by the public official: The most important aspect for the formation of the crime is that the perpetrator’s statement is taken as the basis for preparing the official document without being examined or verified by the public official. If the public official could verify the accuracy of the statement through other official documents, the crime cannot be said to have occurred. The false statement must directly result in the creation of the official document without any investigation or scrutiny.
2- The public official receiving the statement must be authorized to issue the relevant official document: For the crime to occur, the public official to whom the false statement is made must be both responsible for and authorized to issue the document in question. If the perpetrator made a statement to someone other than a public official authorized to issue the official document, even if the statement is false, the offense is not established.
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
When evaluated together with its objective and subjective elements, the crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document consists of the following fundamental components:
1- Perpetrator: This crime, regulated under Article 206 of the Turkish Penal Code, is a general offense that can be committed by anyone.
2- Victim: As this crime falls under “Crimes Against Public Trust,” the victim of the offense is society.
3- Act (Conduct Element): The act constituting the crime is making a false statement to a public official authorized to issue an official document. The crime can be committed through either written or verbal statements. The occurrence of damage is not required for the crime to be established.
4- Legal Interest Protected by the Crime: The crime is regulated under “Crimes Against Public Trust,” and the protected legal interest is the maintenance of public trust and the proper functioning of official processes. A false statement that leads to the issuance of an official document undermines the trust of society and obstructs the proper operation of public order.
5- Mental Element: The crime can only be committed intentionally; it cannot occur through negligence. According to Article 206 of the Turkish Penal Code, the perpetrator must knowingly and willingly make a false statement and be aware that the recipient is a public official and that an official document is being issued.
6- Object of the Crime: The object of this crime is the official document issued by the public official based on the perpetrator’s false statement.
COMPLAINT PERIOD, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND COMPETENT COURT
The crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document is not subject to a complaint and is investigated ex officio by the public prosecutor. Although there is no complaint period required for the investigation of the crime, the statute of limitations for filing a case is eight years. This period begins from the date the crime was committed. The competent court for this offense is the Criminal Court of First Instance.
POSTPONEMENT AND SUSPENSION OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE VERDICT
According to Article 206 of the Turkish Penal Code, a person who makes a false statement to a public official authorized to issue an official document shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to two years or with a judicial fine.
For this type of offense, both a judicial fine and imprisonment are prescribed as alternative penalties. Therefore, it is not possible to apply both types of penalties simultaneously. Considering the minimum and maximum limits of the penalty, it is possible to issue a decision to postpone the announcement of the verdict or to defer the execution of the sentence.
RELEVANT DECISIONS
“…It was alleged that the defendant fell while chasing a bird on the roof of his house and broke his leg, was urgently taken to Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, and, without presenting any identification, since he had no social security and there was an arrest warrant against him, he registered himself under the name of …, thereby committing the crimes of qualified fraud against public institutions and making a false statement in the issuance of an official document.
However, it was established that on the date of the incident, the defendant was urgently taken to the hospital and received treatment for his broken leg, that no fee is charged for procedures carried out in emergency admissions, and that a person without health insurance is considered as having general health insurance, with treatment and examination expenses to be covered by the Social Security Institution (SGK). Therefore, no harm was caused to any institution, and the legal element of the alleged qualified fraud was not fulfilled.
Although punishment was sought for making a false statement in the issuance of an official document due to the false declaration of his identity, the court concluded that this act should be considered as part of the elements of the crime of qualified fraud. No error was found in the court’s decision acquitting the defendant and ruling that no further action was necessary…”
(Yargıtay 15th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2016/334 E., Decision No. 2018/50 K., Date: 08.01.2018)
“…In light of the explanations above, when the specific case is evaluated; it was determined that the defendant, against whom a search warrant had been issued, stated during a routine police procedure that his identification was left in his wife’s bag and that she was out of town, claiming to be his brother-in-law … in order to avoid apprehension. Subsequent investigations revealed the defendant’s true identity, and the arrest report was prepared using his real identity. It was understood that there was no official document issued based on the defendant’s false statement.
Accordingly, the elements of the crime defined under Article 206/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, “making a false statement in the issuance of an official document,” were not fulfilled. The defendant’s action constituted the administrative offense of “making a false statement regarding one’s identity” regulated under Article 40/1 of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326. Considering that the defendant had already been issued an administrative fine for this act, convicting him constitutes a violation of the law. The defendant’s grounds for appeal are therefore well-founded.
Based on Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and in accordance with Article 321 of the former Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412, the judgment is REVERSED…”
(Yargıtay 11th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2019/5220 E., Decision No. 2022/18993 K., Date: 15.11.2022)
“…It was determined that one of the defendants, …, attempted to reclaim his vehicle, which had been impounded by the traffic officers for being unlicensed, using registration documents belonging to another vehicle. However, a simple check by the officers, including a verification of the chassis number, revealed that the documents did not correspond to the impounded vehicle, and the report was prepared accordingly. Considering that a simple investigation by the officers could have revealed the false statement and that the officers had a duty to carry out such an inquiry, convicting the defendant instead of acquitting him is contrary to the law.
Since the defendant’s appeal is therefore well-founded, the judgment is REVERSED for this reason in accordance with Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the former Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412…”
(Yargıtay 11th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2015/3648 E., Decision No. 2017/2612 K., Date: 06.04.2017)
“…In the specific case, the defendant was required to appear at the police station and sign under judicial control measures but instead sent non-appellant Yaser İhtiyar to the station to sign on his behalf. When Yaser İhtiyar was asked for identification at the station, the defendant’s true identity was revealed. Since Yaser İhtiyar did not sign any judicial or administrative investigation document or report prepared in the name of the defendant …, the elements of the crime defined under Article 206/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, “making a false statement in the issuance of an official document,” were not fulfilled.
Convicting the defendant without considering that he should have been acquitted is contrary to the law. Since the defendant’s grounds for appeal are therefore well-founded, the judgment is REVERSED pursuant to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the former Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412…”
(Yargıtay 11th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2019/8561 E., Decision No. 2022/1834 K., Date: 09.02.2022)
“…For the crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document to occur, an official document must be prepared by an authorized public official based on the individual’s statements, and the prepared document must have evidentiary power to verify the truthfulness of the statement. If the false statement alone does not have evidentiary value and the official would need to verify the accuracy of the stated facts before issuing the document, the information forming the basis of the document is not considered a false statement but rather information obtained as a result of the official’s investigation. Accordingly, if the official would need to conduct further inquiries or review the document, or if the document is correctly prepared despite the false statement because the official was not misled, the crime will not be established.
In light of the above explanations, in the specific case, it was determined that the defendant, against whom an arrest warrant had been issued, presented a driver’s license belonging to a deceased friend to the authorities. When it was noticed that the photo on the license did not resemble the defendant and the authorities asked again, the defendant then admitted his true identity. Since the false statement was not believed and the official document was prepared based on the defendant’s true identity, the elements of the crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document were not fulfilled. Convicting the defendant without considering this is contrary to the law.
Since the public prosecutor’s appeal is well-founded, the judgment is REVERSED for this reason pursuant to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the former Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412…”
(Yargıtay 11th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2013/7413 E., Decision No. 2015/25443 K., Date: 15.04.2015)
“…It was alleged that the defendants … Müren and … Müren were married, and that the other defendant … Müren was a relative of … Müren. Since … Müren had no social security, she was admitted to the hospital for childbirth using … Müren’s green card, a card that did not belong to her, and gave birth in the hospital using someone else’s card. After the birth, a birth report, which is an original document and an official record, was prepared. In the birth report, it was claimed that the mother of the child was incorrectly recorded as … Müren and the father as … Müren.
1- Regarding the appeal against the decision to postpone the announcement of the verdict issued for … Müren and Sabriye Müren for the crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document: According to Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, a decision to postpone the announcement of a verdict is not conclusive in the case, and an objection is allowed under Article 231/12 of the same law, while there is no opportunity for appeal. Therefore, under Article 264 of the CPC, a mistake in determining the competent authority in a legally acceptable application does not remove the applicant’s rights. It was decided to accept the appeal petition as an objection petition and to refer the file to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation for return to the competent court of first instance to examine the objection without reviewing the file.
2- Regarding the appeals against the acquittal of … Müren for the crime of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document, and the acquittal of the defendants for the crime of qualified fraud: From the defendants’ defense, the statements of the complainant, and the contents of the file, it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict … Müren of making a false statement in the issuance of an official document. Regarding the acquittals for qualified fraud, since the responsible officer had the opportunity to understand, through a simple check, whether the identity information on the green card matched, but failed to do so, the elements of the crime of qualified fraud were not established. There was no error in the court’s acceptance of acquittal on this basis…”
(Yargıtay 15th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2015/8227 E., Decision No. 2018/5729 K., Date: 19.09.2018)
Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Yasemin ERAK
