The Crime of Prostitution in Turkish Law

Prostitution Offense

The offense of prostitution is regulated under Article 227 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, within the section titled “Crimes Against Public Morality.” The crime of prostitution involves enabling a person to engage in sexual intercourse with another person in exchange for money. The offenses mentioned in the relevant article of the Turkish Penal Code are as follows:

Encouraging a child to engage in prostitution (Article 227/1 of the Turkish Penal Code)
Encouraging a person to engage in prostitution (Article 227/2 of the Turkish Penal Code)
Facilitating prostitution (Article 227/2 of the Turkish Penal Code)
Acting as an intermediary for prostitution (Article 227/2 of the Turkish Penal Code)
Providing a place for prostitution (Article 227/2 of the Turkish Penal Code)
Facilitating or acting as an intermediary for prostitution (Article 227/3 of the Turkish Penal Code)

Aggravated Form of the Offense of Prostitution

If a person induces another into prostitution or ensures that they engage in prostitution by using force or threats, through deceit, or by exploiting their helplessness, the penalty prescribed in the first three paragraphs of Article 227 of the Turkish Penal Code shall be increased by half up to double.

If the offenses defined in the first three paragraphs of Article 227 of the Turkish Penal Code are committed by a spouse, an ascendant, a father-in-law or mother-in-law, a sibling, an adoptive parent, a guardian, an educator, a teacher, a caregiver, or other persons who have a duty of protection and supervision, or by abusing the influence arising from a public office or service relationship, the penalty shall be increased by half.

If these offenses are committed within the framework of activities of an organization established for the purpose of committing crimes, the penalty prescribed in the first three paragraphs of Article 227 of the Turkish Penal Code shall be increased by half.

Anyone who encourages a child to engage in prostitution, facilitates it, procures the child for this purpose, harbors the child, or acts as an intermediary in the child’s prostitution shall be punished with imprisonment from four to ten years and a judicial fine of up to five thousand days. Preparatory acts aimed at committing this offense shall also be punished as if the offense had been completed.

Effective Remorse

There are no provisions for effective remorse (mitigation due to repentance) in the Turkish Penal Code regarding the offense of prostitution. In accordance with the principle of legality, effective remorse can only be applied to offenses for which it is explicitly regulated. Therefore, the provisions of effective remorse cannot be applied to the crime of prostitution.

However, in cases where the offense of prostitution is committed in its simple form, the perpetrator may be sentenced to imprisonment from 2 to 4 years and a judicial fine of up to 3,000 days. A person who encourages another to engage in prostitution, facilitates it, acts as an intermediary for prostitution, or provides a place for it is considered to have committed the offense in its simple form. Benefiting partially or entirely from the income of the person driven into prostitution and using it for one’s livelihood is deemed as encouragement to prostitution (Article 227/2 of the Turkish Penal Code).

Is the Offense of Prostitution Subject to Complaint?

The offense of prostitution is not subject to a complaint. Therefore, there is no statute of limitations for filing a complaint. It can be investigated and prosecuted ex officio by the public prosecutor and the court.

Is the Offense of Prostitution Subject to Mediation?

In criminal procedure law, mediation, which developed with the aim of protecting the rights of victims and reintegrating offenders into society, is a process where the victim and the offender, with their free will, actively participate in resolving the issues arising from the crime with the help of a neutral third party. The offense of prostitution is a crime against public morality and is not subject to mediation.

Statute of Limitations

In cases of prostitution involving an adult victim, the ordinary statute of limitations for prosecution is 8 years. The statute of limitations for a prostitution offense committed against a child is 15 years.

Other Offenses Related to the Crime of Prostitution

In Article 80 of the Turkish Penal Code, titled “Human Trafficking,” it is stated that anyone who brings people into the country, takes them out of the country, procures, kidnaps, transports them from one place to another, or shelters them for the purpose of “forcing them into prostitution” shall be sentenced to imprisonment from eight to twelve years and a judicial fine of up to ten thousand days.

Competent Court

The competent court in cases arising from the offense of prostitution is the criminal court of first instance.

Relevant Court of Cassation Decisions

The judgments issued by the local court were appealed, and the case was reviewed based on the appeal deadline, the nature of the decision, and the date of the offense:

Since there were no reasons to reject the appeal request, the merits of the case were examined.

Upon review of the minutes, documents, and reasoning content reflecting the trial process in which the conscience of the court was formed, no other reasons were deemed relevant.

However;

1) Although the defendant admitted in his statements during the proceedings that in March 2012, while working as a taxi driver, he met [names omitted], who made a living through prostitution, that he transported these women by taxi, and later, at their request, arranged clients for them for money, taking a fifty percent commission for each client, and that clients would call him, and he would direct them to these women, the court convicted him without investigating the authenticity of the individuals named as the victims, [names omitted], who were allegedly involved in prostitution. Furthermore, their statements were not taken into account. The decision of conviction was made despite the fact that Article 227/2 of the Turkish Penal Code contains the provision that “Anyone who encourages a person to engage in prostitution, facilitates it, acts as an intermediary for prostitution, or provides a place for prostitution shall be sentenced to imprisonment from two to four years and a judicial fine of up to three thousand days. Benefiting from the earnings of a person driven into prostitution, either partially or entirely supporting one’s livelihood, is considered as encouraging prostitution.” Given that the offense can be committed against an identified or identifiable victim, the court’s failure to investigate the actual existence and identity of these victims and to take their testimony as victims, combined with the insufficient reasoning and incomplete investigation, led to the defendant’s conviction for facilitating the prostitution of these individuals.

2) According to the acceptance:

a) Although it was acknowledged that the defendant committed the offense of prostitution against three different victims, it was not considered that the offense of prostitution would occur according to the number of victims, and that the defendant’s actions of facilitating prostitution for the same victim multiple times at different times, within the scope of the execution of a criminal decision, should also be subject to the provisions of consecutive offenses under Article 43/1 of the Turkish Penal Code.

b) According to the acceptance, the provision regarding the deprivation of rights in Article 53/1-b of the Turkish Penal Code, following the cancellation of the provision by the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 08/10/2015 and numbered 2014/140 (principal) and 2015/85 (decision), can no longer be applied.

This required a reversal, and since the defendant’s appeal grounds were found to be valid, contrary to the opinion of the public prosecutor, the JUDGMENTS WERE REVERSED. As there was no appeal against the defendant, when issuing a new judgment, the provisions of Article 326/last of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 must be considered. The case file was sent to the competent court for retrial, to continue and conclude the proceedings from the stage before the reversal. The decision was made by a majority vote on 07/01/2019. (Court of Cassation, 18th Criminal Chamber, 2016/18449 E., 2019/58 K.)

Based on the minutes, documents, and reasoning content reflecting the trial process where the moral conviction was formed, and after reviewing the case regarding the defendant … and the offense of “prostitution” committed against the victim …, it was determined that a decision could be made within the statute of limitations.

The solution reached through the prostitution acts committed by the defendants …, …, … towards the victims …, …, …, …, …, …, and the prostitution act committed towards … and … has been justified by the essential elements required, and it has been determined, in accordance with the law, that these acts were committed by the defendants. It was concluded through the trial process that all claims and defenses raised during the stages, supported by all the evidence, were presented in a manner that ensures the appeal review, and were fully discussed without altering their essence, with the moral conviction being based on clear, consistent, and non-contradictory evidence.

It was determined that the actions were correctly classified and conform to the offense type outlined in the law.

The provision regarding the deprivation of rights in Article 53/1-b of the Turkish Penal Code, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 08/10/2015, numbered 2014/140 and 2015/85, may be considered ex officio during the execution phase.

It is understood that the acquittal decision regarding the crime of establishing an organization to commit crimes, charged against defendant …, and the crimes of being a member of an organization established for the purpose of committing crimes, charged against defendants …, … are both procedurally and legally appropriate.

As the reasons presented by the defense attorneys for defendants …, …, …, and the local public prosecutor have not been found valid, in accordance with the notification, the APPEAL CASE IS REJECTED ON THE MERITS AND THE DECISIONS ARE UPHELD.

Regarding the appeal of the verdicts for defendants …, …, … regarding the crime of prostitution against victim …, and for defendant … regarding the crime of prostitution against victim …, no other reasons have been found valid.

However,

In the second paragraph of Article 227 titled “Prostitution” of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, it is stated that “encouraging someone to engage in prostitution, facilitating the act, or mediating or providing a location for prostitution is defined as a separate crime, and it is accepted that benefiting from the earnings of a person pushed into prostitution to partially or fully support one’s livelihood is considered as encouraging prostitution.” Encouraging prostitution means attempting to create an intention in a person to engage in prostitution. Facilitating prostitution refers to providing all means for someone seeking prostitution or enabling a person to be drawn into prostitution.

Mediating prostitution involves ensuring the meeting between the victim and the person wishing to satisfy their sexual desires. Providing a location refers to arranging a place for the victim and the person wanting to satisfy their sexual desires to meet. The crime specified in the paragraph is a crime with alternative actions, and performing any of the actions listed in the paragraph is sufficient to constitute the crime.

In light of these explanations;

a) In the judgment regarding the charge of prostitution against the defendants …, …, …; since the defendants did not admit the alleged crime during the proceedings, the victim …, in her statement taken before the court, stated that none of the defendants had made an offer for prostitution and that she had not engaged in sexual relations for money with anyone, and it was understood that her statement taken during the investigation was in the same direction. Given that, contrary to the defendants’ defense, it was not possible to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, through conclusive and convincing evidence that they had facilitated prostitution, provided a location, encouraged the victim to engage in prostitution, or earned profits from prostitution, it was decided to convict the defendants …, …, … instead of acquitting them separately for the crime charged against the victim ….

b) In the judgment regarding the charge of prostitution against the defendant …; although the defendant did not admit the alleged crime during the proceedings, and the victim …’s statement taken during the investigation included clear statements about defendants …, …, there was no mention of the other defendant …. Although the victim stated that she was taken to a hotel or house by agreed taxi drivers for sexual relations, she did not mention any actions that could be attributed to the defendant …. Given that, contrary to the defendant’s defense, it was not possible to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, through conclusive and convincing evidence that the defendant had facilitated prostitution, provided a location, encouraged the victim … to engage in prostitution, or earned profits from prostitution, it was decided to convict the defendant … instead of acquitting him for the crime charged against the victim ….

c) According to the acceptance:

The provision concerning the deprivation of rights in Article 53/1-b of the Turkish Penal Code, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 08/10/2015, numbered 2014/140, and 2015/85, has been rendered inapplicable.

This necessitated the reversal of the decision, and since the reasons for appeal raised by the defenders of the defendants …, …, … and the Public Prosecutor of the Local Court were deemed valid, it was decided, contrary to the opinion of the public prosecutor, to REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS, and to send the case file to the court of first instance to continue and conclude the proceedings starting from the stage prior to the reversal.

The decision was made unanimously on 03/10/2019. (Supreme Court 18th Criminal Chamber 2019/901 E., 2019/13799 K.)