The crime of taking the blame is a crime committed by making a false statement to the relevant authorities about the commission or participation in an existing crime. This crime is regulated under Article 270 of the Turkish Penal Code as follows:
Turkish Penal Code, Article 270: “Anyone who falsely informs the competent authorities that they have committed a crime or participated in a crime shall be sentenced to up to two years of imprisonment. If this crime is committed in order to absolve an ascendant, descendant, spouse, or sibling from punishment, the sentence may be reduced by three-quarters or completely lifted.”
The situation of whether the crime is subject to complaint
The crime of taking the blame is not one of the crimes that require a complaint for prosecution. The investigation and prosecution of this crime are carried out ex officio by the public prosecutor. Since this crime is not subject to complaint, even if there is no 6-month statute of limitations, it must be investigated within 8 years for an ex officio investigation to take place.
Scope of the crime for conciliation
The crimes in which the conciliation procedure applies are listed in Article 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the crime of taking the blame is not one of the listed crimes, it is not subject to conciliation.
Mental element of the crime
The crime of taking the blame can only be committed intentionally. Due to the nature of the crime, the judge must proceed with the trial without seeking a motive for the crime. If a person mistakenly believes they have committed the crime and makes a statement accordingly, since the conditions of intent are not met, it would not be possible to state that the crime has occurred.
Situations that require a higher or lower penalty for the crime
There is no provision in the law for a situation that requires a higher penalty for this crime. However, there is a situation in the article of the crime that may result in a lesser penalty or exemption from punishment. Specifically, if the crime is committed in order to absolve an ascendant, descendant, spouse, or sibling from punishment, the judge may reduce the penalty by three-quarters or completely remove it.
Effective remorse
For this crime, there are no provisions for effective remorse due to its nature.
Execution regime of the crime
If the sentence to be imposed by the court on the defendant is less than 2 years and other conditions are met, a decision for the Postponement of the Pronouncement of the Judgment may be made, and the sentence will not be executed. Similarly, if the conditions for the suspension of the prison sentence exist, it is also possible to suspend the sentence imposed on the person.
Relevant Court of Cassation Decisions
Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber, File: 2023/1568, Decision: 2023/658
“Examination of the judgment regarding the defendant … for the crime of assuming responsibility for a crime: According to the entire case file, in the incident where the defendant …, while driving the vehicle with license plate 46 NE… in his possession without a driver’s license, lost control of the steering and caused a traffic accident with material damage, he called his uncle, the defendant …, by phone, mentioned the accident, and asked him to declare that he was the one driving the vehicle. As a result of this request, the defendant …, who had a valid driver’s license, went to the police and falsely declared that he was the one driving the vehicle. Considering that this act did not constitute a crime for the defendant himself, it was found to constitute the crime of aiding a criminal as defined in Article 283 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. Therefore, the judgment based on the charge of assuming responsibility for a crime, without considering the crime of aiding a criminal, was found to be unlawful.”
Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, File: 2014/50625, Decision: 2017/20426, Date: 25.09.2017
Turkish Penal Code Article 270
Crime of Taking on a Crime
Since there were no reasons for rejecting the appeal request, the case proceeded to its merits.
In the review based on the minutes, documents, and reasoning reflecting the trial process in which the conviction was made:
- The individual who was heard during the investigation stage and was determined to be the sole eyewitness to the incident, namely …, was not heard as a witness during the trial phase, which violates Article 210/1 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) No. 5271.
- Regarding the crime of incitement to take the blame, for the crime of false reporting as defined in Article 270 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the perpetrator must inform the competent authorities falsely that they have committed the crime or participated in it, and the act being assumed must constitute a crime. In the present case, the fact that the individual …, who was excluded from review, claimed to have called the complainant but did not threaten or insult them, and the other defendant, …, stated that …, who was excluded from review, called the complainant, led to a lack of clarity on whether the actions of defendant … should be considered as incitement or evaluated within the scope of the right to defense, and without such a discussion, the defendant was convicted with insufficient reasoning.
- Regarding the crimes of insult and threat, the amendments made by Law No. 6763 published in the Official Gazette on 02.12.2016, effective the same day, to Article 253 of the CMK No. 5271, and the added paragraph, required a revision of the reconciliation provisions. It was understood that the threat crime under Article 106/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) attributed to the defendant falls within the scope of reconciliation, while the insult crime, due to being committed with a threat according to the latest amendments, does not. As a result of this new regulation, it was concluded that reconciliation should also be proposed for the insult crime. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 27 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, the necessity of applying the reconciliation process and re-evaluating the legal status of the defendant accordingly was recognized.
CONCLUSION: A reversal was necessary, and as the defendant’s lawyer’s appeal objections were found to be justified, without examining other aspects, the verdict was REVERSED in accordance with Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMUK) No. 1412, which must be applied according to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. The case file was sent to the trial court for continuation of the proceedings from the stage prior to the reversal. The decision was made unanimously on 25.09.2017.
15th Criminal Chamber 2017/31415 E., 2021/1772 K.
“Jurisprudence Text”
COURT: Heavy Penal Court
OFFENSE: Qualified fraud, instigation to assume a crime
VERDICT: Conviction based on Articles 158/1-k, 35/2, 52, 53, 270/1, and 53 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK)
The conviction decisions regarding the defendant … for attempted qualified fraud and instigation to fabricate a crime were appealed by the defendant’s defense lawyer. The file was reviewed, and the necessary considerations were made:
The vehicle with license plate … is registered under the name of the defendant …, who had lost his driving license due to driving under the influence of alcohol. On 29.12.2012, the defendant purchased collision insurance from the complainant …’s company. One day after the insurance policy date, on 30.12.2012, the defendant drove the vehicle registered in his name, with no valid driving license, and caused an accident. After the accident, the defendant contacted his employee, the defendant … (who is outside the scope of this appeal), by phone and encouraged them to falsely confess to the police that they were the driver. He also misrepresented the facts to the gendarmerie traffic officers who came to the accident scene by identifying the defendant … as the driver. Subsequently, the defendant … applied to the complainant company for a claim under the insurance policy. The insurance experts discovered beer bottles in the vehicle, and it was found that the accident report was inconsistent with the vehicle’s service records. Furthermore, … admitted that the accident had been caused by the unlicensed defendant …. For this reason, the defendant was denied the insurance payment. The defendant’s claim in the Susurluk Civil Court regarding the receivable was rejected with a reasoned decision on 23.10.2014.
As such, it was concluded that the defendant … had committed attempted fraud and instigation to assume a crime. There were no errors in the court’s acceptance and applications regarding the defendant’s conviction. Based on the conducted trial, the evidence collected and presented in the decision, and the court’s conclusion and discretion in accordance with the case file, the defense lawyer’s appeal objections were rejected, and the verdict was UPHELD on 23/02/2021, with a unanimous decision.
Views: 1
