The crime of false testimony. - Av. Gökhan Akgül

What is the crime of false testimony?

The crime of false testimony is regulated in Article 272 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). The crime occurs when a person makes a false statement before an authorized individual or body that is allowed to hear witnesses. This crime is commonly referred to as “perjury” in public.

What are the elements of the crime of false testimony?

An investigation must have been initiated due to an unlawful act,
The person must appear before an authorized individual, body, or court to hear witnesses,
A false statement must be made.

The crime of false testimony occurs when all three of these conditions are met.

False Testimony: Complaint – Reconciliation – Statute of Limitations

The crime of false testimony is not among the offenses that require a complaint, but even if the crime is not complaint-based, the person can still file a complaint against the one who committed the false testimony. Even if the complainant withdraws the complaint later, the case will continue as a public prosecution.
The crime of false testimony is not one of the offenses subject to reconciliation.
The statute of limitations for the crime is 8 years. If no lawsuit is filed within 8 years from the date the crime was committed, the right to file a lawsuit will be extinguished.

THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME OF FALSE TESTIMONY

Anyone who gives false testimony before an authorized person or body, other than the court, in the context of an investigation, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 4 months to 1 year.
Anyone who gives false testimony before a person or body legally authorized to hear a witness under oath or in the presence of the court shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 1 to 3 years.
If a person gives false testimony in the investigation or prosecution of a crime that carries a prison sentence of more than 3 years, they shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 2 to 4 years.
If a protective measure other than detention or arrest has been applied to the person against whom the testimony was given, and if a verdict of acquittal or a decision that there is no ground for prosecution has been issued because the act charged was not committed, the penalty to be imposed under the above paragraphs will be increased by half.
If the person against whom the testimony was given is detained or arrested, and if a verdict of acquittal or a decision that there is no ground for prosecution has been issued because the act charged was not committed, the person giving false testimony will also be held indirectly responsible under the provisions related to the crime of deprivation of liberty.
If the person against whom the testimony was given is sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment or life imprisonment, the person giving false testimony will be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 20 to 30 years. If the person is sentenced to a fixed-term prison sentence, the sentence will be two-thirds of the sentence they received.
If the execution of the prison sentence of the person against whom the testimony was given has begun, the penalty to be imposed will be increased by half, as stated in the above paragraph.
If a judicial or administrative sanction other than imprisonment has been applied to the person against whom the testimony was given, the person giving false testimony shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of 3 to 7 years.

Aggravating Factors in the Crime of False Testimony

The aggravating factors in the crime of false testimony are listed in Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the law. These are:

False testimony made in front of a person or body authorized by law to hear witnesses, either in court or after being sworn in.
False testimony made during the investigation or prosecution of a crime that requires more than three years of imprisonment.
If a protective measure other than detention or arrest is applied to the person against whom false testimony is given, and if a decision of acquittal or a decision that there is no grounds for prosecution is issued due to the person not having committed the alleged act,
If the person against whom false testimony is given is sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment or life imprisonment,
If a judicial or administrative sanction other than imprisonment is applied to the person against whom false testimony is given.

Effective remorse in the crime of false testimony.

The provisions of effective remorse in the crime of false testimony are applied as follows:

If the truth is told before a decision is made regarding a restriction or deprivation of a right, or before the sentence, no penalty will be imposed.
If a decision regarding a restriction or deprivation of a right has been made, but the truth is told before the sentence, the penalty can be reduced by up to half of two-thirds of the penalty.
If the truth is told before the conviction becomes final, the penalty can be reduced by up to one-third of the original penalty.

Personal Exemption from Penalty and Reduction in the Crime of False Testimony

-If a person gives false testimony regarding a matter that could lead to an investigation or prosecution of themselves, their ascendants, descendants, spouse, or siblings, the court may reduce the penalty or even decide to refrain from imposing any penalty.

-If a person has the right to refuse to testify, but testifies falsely without being reminded of this right, the court may reduce the penalty or even decide to refrain from imposing any penalty.

Conversion of the Crime of False Testimony into a Fine and the Decision to Postpone the Pronouncement of the Judgment

–The conversion of the prison sentence imposed for the crime of false testimony into a fine is possible, provided that the conditions stipulated by the law are met.

-If the prison sentence imposed as a result of the trial for the crime allegedly committed by the defendant is two years or less, or if it is a judicial fine, the court may decide to postpone the pronouncement of the judgment. The decision to postpone the pronouncement of the judgment means that the judgment established by the court will not have any legal consequences for the defendant.

Court of Cassation Rulings

8th Criminal Chamber 2019/12564 E., 2020/12913 K.

“Case Law Text”

COURT: Criminal Court of First Instance

CRIMES: Defamation, false testimony

VERDICTS: Acquittal

The matter has been discussed and considered:

The participant’s convictions for the crimes of defamation and false testimony, and the defense attorney’s appeal regarding the conviction for false testimony, arguing that an acquittal should have been issued under Article 223/2-a of the Criminal Procedure Code, were reviewed.

The court evaluated the evidence and provided reasons for the acquittal decisions, which were found to be in compliance with procedural rules and the law. The participant’s appeal that the elements of the crimes were established, and the defense attorney’s argument that the elements of the crime of false testimony were not present, were rejected as unfounded. The decisions were upheld, and a unanimous decision was made on 09.06.2020.

9th Criminal Chamber 2014/1335 E., 2014/3130 K.

“Jurisprudence Text”

Court: Criminal Court of First Instance

Crime: False testimony

Judgment: Conviction under Articles 272/2, 62, 50/1, and 52/4 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK)

The file was reviewed, and necessary considerations were made:

The judgment was made based on the trial, the evidence presented in the decision, the court’s conclusion and assessment in line with the results of the investigation, and the review of the case file. After considering the objections raised by the defendant, which were not deemed valid, the following issues were found:

Although the defendant is the principal perpetrator of the crime of false testimony, the judgment incorrectly states that “the defendant committed the crime of instigating false testimony.”
The relevant legal provision for converting the imposed prison sentence to a fine was not specified when determining the amount equivalent to one day of the prison sentence.

These errors are deemed contrary to the law, and the judgment was overturned for these reasons. Since it was possible to correct these issues without a retrial in accordance with Article 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the expression “instigating false testimony” in the first paragraph of the judgment was removed and replaced with “false testimony,” and the phrase “under Article 52/2 of the Turkish Penal Code” was added to the fifth paragraph. The remaining parts of the judgment were found to be in compliance with the procedure and law, and the judgment was corrected and upheld with unanimous decision on 18.03.2014.

9th Criminal Chamber 2013/10854 E., 2014/1225 K.

“Case Law Text”

Notification No: 9 – 2012/65122

Court: Erciş Criminal Court of First Instance

Date: 27.09.2011

File Number: 2011/482 – 2011/903

Crime: False Testimony

After reviewing the file, the necessary considerations were made:

In the indictment No. 2011/400 by the Erciş Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, it is claimed that the defendant made false testimony during the hearing of the Erciş Criminal Court of First Instance, file No. 2010/639, dated 03.05.2011. In the defense of the defendant, who was being tried for false testimony, he stated: “I told the truth in the statement I gave to the police, but later, since both of them are my relatives and they reconciled, I stated during the trial that I did not see a weapon with Vahyettin. I had no intention of giving false testimony, I request my acquittal,” thereby admitting his crime. Based on the file, it was understood that he confessed to the crime of false testimony, which was substantiated and constituted the elements of the crime. However, the court decided to acquit the defendant on the incorrect grounds that the police did not have the authority to listen to witnesses and that the crime would not occur based on the statement given by the defendant to the police.

This decision is contrary to the law. Therefore, the public prosecutor’s appeal is considered justified, and the judgment is REVERSED for this reason. The decision was unanimously made on 05.02.2014.