Legal definition of the offence
The offence of failing to report the whereabouts of a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime is regulated under Article 284 of the Turkish Penal Code within the section titled “Offences Against the Judiciary.” The relevant legal provision is as follows:
Article 284 of the Turkish Penal Code:
(1) A person who, knowing the whereabouts of an individual for whom a detention order has been issued or who has been convicted, fails to report it to the competent authorities shall be punished with imprisonment of up to one year.
(2) A person who, knowing the location where evidence or traces relating to a committed crime are being concealed by others, fails to report it to the competent authorities shall be punished in accordance with the provision of the above paragraph.
(3) If these offences are committed by a public official in connection with their duty, the penalty shall be increased by one-half.
(4) If these offences are committed by an ascendant, descendant, spouse, or sibling, no penalty shall be imposed.
Elements of the offence
The offence of failing to report the whereabouts of a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime, when evaluated together with its objective and subjective elements, is based on the following fundamental components:
1- Perpetrator (Offender): The relevant legal provision does not require any special qualification for the offender; therefore, anyone may commit this offence. However, if the offender is a public official, this is separately regulated in the law and constitutes an aggravating circumstance leading to an increased penalty.
2- Victim: The victim of this offence is the public.
3- Act (Conduct) Element: The conduct element of this offence consists of knowing the whereabouts of a person who is subject to a detention order or who has been convicted, or knowing the location where evidence or traces of a committed crime are concealed, and nevertheless failing to report this to the competent authorities.
4- Legally Protected Interest: This offence is regulated under the “Offences Against the Judiciary” section of the Turkish Penal Code. The legally protected interest is public trust and the proper functioning of the justice system.
5- Mens Rea (Mental Element): The offence can only be committed intentionally; negligence is not sufficient under the law. The offender must know that a detention order has been issued against the suspect or that a final judicial decision has imposed a sentence. Similarly, for the application of the second paragraph, the offender must know that the evidence or traces relate to a committed crime and that they are being concealed by others, yet still fail to report this to the competent authorities.
Aggravating circumstances
The offence of failing to report the whereabouts of a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime, regulated under Article 284 of the Turkish Penal Code, is also provided with qualified forms in certain situations that require a heavier penalty. The relevant legal provision states that if the offence is committed by a public official in connection with their duty, the imposed sentence shall be increased by one-half.
Personal grounds for non-punishment
Article 284/4 of the Turkish Penal Code provides that “If these offences are committed by an ascendant, descendant, spouse, or sibling, no penalty shall be imposed.” Accordingly, it is stated that no punishment shall be imposed where the offence is committed in favour of persons who are in certain familial relationships.
Time limit for complaint, statute of limitations, and competent court
The investigation and prosecution of the offence are not subject to a complaint; investigative proceedings are carried out ex officio by the public prosecutor. Although there is no time limit for filing a complaint in relation to the investigation of the offence, the statute of limitations for prosecution is eight years. The competent courts are the Criminal Courts of First Instance.
Judicial fine, suspension of the sentence, and decision to defer the announcement of the judgment
Pursuant to Article 284 of the Turkish Penal Code, a person who, despite knowing the whereabouts of an individual for whom a detention order has been issued or who has been convicted, fails to report it to the competent authorities, or who, despite knowing the location where evidence or traces related to a committed offence are being concealed by others, fails to report it to the competent authorities, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to one year.
Considering the minimum and maximum limits of the penalty, it is possible for the imprisonment to be converted into a judicial fine, and for a decision of deferred announcement of the judgment (HAGB) or suspension of the sentence to be rendered.
Supreme Court decisions on the subject
“…As for the review of the judgment rendered against the defendant … for the offence of failing to report the whereabouts of a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime; although a public prosecution was initiated on the allegation that the defendant, despite knowing the whereabouts of … who was subject to an arrest warrant, failed to report it to the competent authorities, there is no clear, convincing, and doubt-free evidence proving that the defendant knew that an arrest warrant had been issued in respect of …; the communication interception order issued against the defendant does not cover this offence, and therefore telephone conversations cannot constitute evidence of this offence; and it has not been established that the defendant committed the offence attributed to them. Accordingly, instead of acquitting the defendant, the imposition of a conviction in writing is contrary to law.
Since the appeals filed by the defendants …, …, …, …, …, …, …, …, the counsel of the child involved in the offence …, and the representative of the complainant … were found to be well-founded, the judgments are therefore, partially in line with the opinion in the prosecutor’s submission, REVERSED for these reasons.”
(Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, 2018/3571 E., 2019/5618 K., 18.12.2019)
“…In the appellate review of the judgment rendered against the defendant for the offence of failing to report the whereabouts of a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime, it was held that the act of the defendant in sheltering and providing a place for his fugitive friend, co-defendant …, would constitute the offence of assisting an offender as regulated under Article 283 of the Turkish Penal Code. However, without taking this into consideration, the court erred in the legal classification of the offence and rendered a conviction in writing. Since this was contrary to law and the defendant’s appeal was found to be justified, the judgment is hereby REVERSED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which is applicable under Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, and Articles 321 and 326/last of the Code.”
(Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, 2017/25720 E., 2020/10631 K., 27.02.2020)
“…The file was examined and the matter was considered: it was understood that the actions of the defendants, consisting of failing to report to the competent authorities the whereabouts of … who, at the time of the offence, was not subject to a detention order, do not constitute the offence regulated under Article 284/1 of the Turkish Penal Code. Nevertheless, instead of acquitting the defendants, convictions were rendered in writing, which is contrary to law. Since the appeals of the defendants were therefore found to be justified, the judgments are accordingly REVERSED for this reason.”
(Court of Cassation, 9th Criminal Chamber, 2013/3373 E., 2013/8699 K., 06.06.2013)
“…It was determined that, in light of the upper limits of the penalties prescribed for the offence of failing to report the whereabouts of a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime as defined under Articles 284/2-1 and 31/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, applicable to the act of the child in conflict with the law who, at the time of the offence, was in the 12–15 age group, the six-year extraordinary statute of limitations stipulated under Articles 66/1-e, 66/2, and 67/4 of the same Code had elapsed between the date of the offence (31/12/2012) and the date of review. This necessitated reversal, and since the appeal objections raised by the defence counsel of the child in conflict with the law were found to be well-founded in this respect, the judgment is hereby REVERSED for the stated reasons…”
(Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber, 2019/1485 E., 2019/7068 K., 11.04.2019)
“…Considering that, based on the upper limits of the penalties prescribed for the offences of armed threat under Article 106/2-a of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and failure to report evidence of a crime under Article 284/2 of the same Code, the 12-year extraordinary statute of limitations set forth in Articles 66/1-e and 67/4 had been completed during the appellate stage, taking into account the suspension period between the finalisation of the decision on the deferral of the announcement of the judgment and the date of the intentional offence committed during the probation period, it was understood that the statute of limitations had expired. Accordingly, since the appeal objections raised by the defence counsel of the defendant … were found to be well-founded, and pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, applicable under Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, the judgments are REVERSED in accordance with the prosecutor’s opinion, without examination of other aspects…”
(Court of Cassation, 4th Criminal Chamber, 2020/23481 E., 2021/428 K., 12.01.2021)
“…It was determined that the defendant … left the Open Penal Institution of … in 2012 on temporary leave; however, despite the expiry of the leave period, he did not return to prison and began living in his hometown, in the highland area of … Village and its surroundings. During this three-year period in which he was a fugitive, he used a forged identity card issued in the name of Mahmut Yılmaz. On the date of the incident, the defendant … knowingly came from his village to the district centre in the vehicle of co-defendant … in order to meet his needs, purchased an unlicensed Baretta brand firearm for 1,600.00 TL from … (outside the scope of the investigation), and during the search of the vehicle, an unlicensed firearm, various ammunition, and a knife were seized. In addition, a second unlicensed firearm was found under the driver’s seat belonging to the defendant …. It was also alleged that the defendant …, who had taken into his vehicle the defendant … knowing that he was a fugitive, committed the offence of failing to report the whereabouts of a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime by not informing the competent authorities.
As a result of the trial, and upon evaluation of the defendants’ statements, the expert report numbered ANK-BLS-15/05690 stating that the seized pistols and cartridges were of a prohibited nature under Law No. 6136, the expert report numbered ANK-BLG-15/03329 stating that the identity card subject to the offence was original and that the impressions of the embossed seal on the front and back of the document and the existing photograph were consistent with the comparative samples in the laboratory archive, as well as the entire case file and all collected evidence considered as a whole, it was concluded that the defendants had committed the offences attributed to them, and convictions subject to appeal were accordingly rendered.
C. Regarding the judgments rendered against the defendant … for violation of Law No. 6136 and the offence of failing to report a detainee, convicted person, or evidence of a crime:
- On the date of judgment, the defendant was understood to be serving a sentence for another offence in the Sinop Open Penal Institution, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court hearing the case. Without asking whether the defendant wished to be exempted from attending the hearing and without a decision on this matter, and without ensuring his presence at the hearing where the judgment was pronounced or enabling his participation via the SEGBİS system so that the judgment could be delivered in his presence, the proceedings were continued in his absence and a decision was rendered. This constituted a violation of Articles 193 and 196 of Law No. 5271 and resulted in a restriction of the right of defence.
- After the judgment regarding the offence under Law No. 6136 attributed to the defendant, it was noted that the Constitutional Court, by its decision dated 21.04.2022 (Case No. 2020/87, Decision No. 2022/44), published in the Official Gazette dated 02.08.2022 and numbered 31911, annulled as unconstitutional the phrase “entered the prosecution phase, adjudicated” contained in subparagraph (d) of Temporary Article 5 added to Law No. 5271 by Article 31 of Law No. 7188 dated 17.10.2019, in terms of the summary trial procedure. It was further noted that the provision added to Article 250(11) of Law No. 5271 by Article 22 of Law No. 7331, published in the Official Gazette on 14.07.2021 and entering into force on the same date, stating that “the summary trial procedure shall not be applied if an offence within its scope is committed together with another offence not within its scope,” may only be applied to offences committed after its entry into force. Accordingly, it was deemed necessary to reassess the legal situation of the defendant.
For these reasons, the judgments were found to be contrary to law…”
(Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, 2021/37320 E., 2024/3383 K., 13.03.2024)
“…It was established that on the date of the offence, forest protection officers were carrying out inspections inside the forest, and that the defendants …, … and … were transporting firewood in a vehicle commonly referred to as a “pat pat”. The forest protection officers warned them to stop; however, the defendants did not comply. While passing next to a service vehicle with licence plate …, which was loaded with firewood, they scratched it by scraping the left side and broke the left rear parking light. The forest protection officers then requested the defendants to follow them and informed the gendarmerie. The defendants fled the scene stating that the road was narrow and they could not turn around, and that they would return shortly from ahead. Meanwhile, the other defendant …, who was the village headman, delayed the gendarmerie and forest protection officers, thereby facilitating the defendants’ escape. The defendant … stated in his testimony that he did not know the defendants.
In the case concerning the alleged offences of damaging public property and failing to report evidence of a crime, and considering the defendants’ statements, the complainant’s statement, and witness testimonies, and evaluating the entire case file as a whole, it was concluded that the defendants collided with the forest protection officers’ vehicle while attempting to flee; however, this act was not committed intentionally, but at most with conscious negligence. Nevertheless, since the offence of property damage can only be committed intentionally and not through negligence, this legal qualification was taken into account. As for the other defendant …, it was determined based on witness statements that he did not engage in any act facilitating the defendants’ escape or failing to report evidence; therefore, no error was found in the court’s decision to acquit him.
Considering the trial conducted, the evidence collected and indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, the court’s conviction and discretion formed in accordance with the results of the proceedings, and the entire case file examined, the appeals of the complainant were rejected and the judgments were AFFIRMED.”
(Court of Cassation, 15th Criminal Chamber, 2014/15999 E., 2015/25841 K., 27.05.2025)
Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Yasemin ERAK
