Legal Definition of the Crime
The crime of false swearing is regulated under Article 275 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) under the heading “Crimes Against the Judiciary.” The relevant provisions of the law state:
TCK Article 275 (1) In civil lawsuits, a plaintiff or defendant who swears falsely shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to five years.
(2) If the truth is told before a judgment is rendered in the case, no punishment shall be imposed.
(3) If the truth is told before the enforcement or finalization of the judgment, the sentence to be imposed shall be reduced by half.
Elements of the Crime
The crime of false swearing, when evaluated with both its objective and subjective elements, has the following fundamental components:
1-Act (Actus Reus): The act element of this crime is the act of swearing falsely. The crime occurs when the plaintiff or defendant, who has been lawfully offered an oath in accordance with the legal form and conditions in a civil lawsuit, makes statements contrary to the truth under oath.
2-Perpetrator (Offender): Under Article 275 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the perpetrator of the crime is the plaintiff or defendant who swears falsely in civil lawsuits. This is a specific type of crime, and it is sufficient for the perpetrator to hold the status of plaintiff or defendant at the time the false oath is made. If witnesses heard in the case file, who are not plaintiffs or defendants, commit false swearing, the offense is not false swearing but rather perjury under Article 272/2 of the TCK.
3-Victim: The victim of this crime is society. However, individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a result of the crime can also be considered victims.
4-Protected Legal Interest: The crime of false swearing is regulated under the heading “Crimes Against the Judiciary,” and the legal interest it protects is the right to a fair trial and the public interest.
5-Mental Element (Mens Rea): The crime is intentionally committed and cannot be committed negligently under the law.
Effective Remorse
Effective Remorse is a legal concept in criminal law that allows for a reduction in the penalty if the offender shows remorse for the committed act and remedies the damage caused by the crime. Under Articles 275/2-3 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the offender may benefit from the provisions of effective remorse if they tell the truth.
According to the relevant legal provisions: if the truth is disclosed by the offender before a judgment is rendered in the case, no penalty shall be imposed; if the truth is disclosed before the execution or finalization of the judgment, the penalty shall be reduced by half.
Complaint Period, Statute of Limitations, and Competent Court
Under Article 275 of the Turkish Penal Code, this offense is not subject to a complaint, and the investigation is conducted ex officio by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Although there is no complaint period for the investigation of the offense, the statute of limitations for the case is 8 years. The competent court is the Court of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi).
Judicial Fine, Deferred Pronouncement of Judgment, and Suspension
According to Article 275/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), a plaintiff or defendant who takes a false oath in civil cases shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to five years. Considering the minimum and maximum limits of the penalty, it is possible to convert the prison sentence into a judicial fine, to issue a decision to defer the pronouncement of the judgment, and to suspend the sentence.
RELATED CASE DECISIONS
“…Supreme Court, 8th Criminal Chamber, Case No. E. 2021/1500, Decision No. K. 2023/2131, Date: 10.04.2023:
- From the summary of file No. 2015/156 E of Düzce 3rd Civil Court of First Instance, it was established that … acted as guarantor for …’s loan. Since … failed to repay the loan, a mortgage was placed on the guarantor …’s house. Subsequently, in order to prevent the sale of their house, … paid the 120,750 TL loan on behalf of … The case was filed due to the collection of this payment with legal interest by … and …. It was claimed by … that he settled his debt by granting the use of a hazelnut orchard to certain individuals for five years. Finally, the oath evidence was invoked in the case file, and it was determined that on 13.10.2015, … and … swore in court that “the hazelnut orchard in question was not harvested for five years in exchange for this debt.”
- In file No. 2015/109 E of the Düzce 3rd Civil Court of First Instance, it was found that … was the plaintiff and purchased the hazelnut orchard from … on 16.04.2010 via an informal sales contract for 70,000 TL, paid the full amount, and used it in good faith until 30.09.2014. However, due to subsequent obstruction by …, a claim was filed. The court found that since the orchard had no official title deed and the plaintiff held a written sales contract, the defendant could only contest this with written evidence, and therefore the plaintiff’s claim was upheld.
- Considering the above and the entire case file, it was determined that there was no contradiction in the defendants’ oath statements in the hearing of file No. 2015/156 E on 13.10.2015 of Düzce 3rd Civil Court of First Instance. The defendants declared in their oath that they did not use the hazelnut orchard to cover the guaranteed debt. Moreover, from file No. 2015/109 E, it is understood that the defendants used the orchard in exchange for payment from …, confirming that they did not commit the crime of false swearing. Therefore, the court’s decision is lawful. The appeals by the plaintiff’s attorney, claiming that the civil cases were not adequately examined, the evidence was incomplete or incorrectly assessed, the crime was established, or witness statements should have been considered, were found to be without merit…”
(Supreme Court, 8th Criminal Chamber, E. 2021/1500, K. 2023/2131, Date: 10.04.2023)
“…In the negative declaratory action filed by the plaintiff company partners claiming that the promissory note issued by the former partner of the company was without consideration, although the defendant, who was endorsed on the note, swore under the offered oath that ‘there was a debt relationship with the former partner … and that he had lent money to …,’ it was understood from the decision of Ankara 4th Civil Commercial Court of First Instance, which was upheld and finalized by the Supreme Court, and from the case file, that … was a company officer at the time the notes were issued and had the opportunity and authority to record the notes and the claimed receivables in the company books. However, there were no records of …’s receivables in the company books, and these receivables were not included in the company’s debt list prepared during the share transfer. Furthermore, … did not provide any documents regarding the receivables, and it was determined that no such debt existed.
Although it was alleged that the defendant swore falsely in court, taking into account the Supreme Court’s Grand General Assembly of Judicial Precedents Decision No. 1940/19 – 1941/12 dated 02.04.1941, which states that in cases requiring proof by written documents, the criminal court judges must base their judgments on the written evidence when the defendant is charged with false swearing in civil courts, it was concluded that oaths cannot be offered in matters requiring proof by written document. The decision in the negative declaratory action was made after examination of the company records in the Ankara 4th Civil Commercial Court, and the decision was upheld by the 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. Therefore, convicting the defendant for a crime whose elements were not established instead of acquitting him was deemed unlawful…”
(Supreme Court, 8th Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/497, K. 2023/4279, Date: 07.06.2023)
“…Supreme Court, 8th Criminal Chamber, E. 2024/23371, K. 2025/1477, Date: 25.02.2025:
In the civil case filed under file number 2016/1090 at Istanbul 3rd Civil Commercial Court of First Instance between …, represented by …, and the company named … Bilişim, represented by the defendant, during the hearing on 19.02.2019, it was alleged that the defendant committed the crime of false swearing by swearing that the medical devices covered by the contract between the two companies had not been delivered to the company he represented.
It was determined that all proceedings during the trial were conducted in accordance with the law and procedural rules, and that the claims and defenses raised at various stages were examined and discussed in the reasoned judgment together with the evidence deemed sufficient based on the case file. Considering the formed conviction and discretion consistent with the trial results, and based on the insufficiency of evidence in the reviewed case file, no error was found in the acquittal of the defendant for the alleged crime…”
“…In the statement given by the defendant to the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 04.10.2012, he stated that he did not carry out the marble work in the construction for the plaintiff, that the marble work in the model apartment was carried out by the company named Doğanoğulları, and that the marble work in the other eight apartments was carried out by the apartment owners themselves. Accordingly, the accuracy of his statement should have been investigated. Considering the opinion of the Supreme Court’s Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments dated 02.04.1941, file no. 1940/19-1941/12, which provides that in matters requiring proof by written document, in cases of false swearing in civil courts, criminal judges must examine the written evidence and make their judgment accordingly in criminal trials, the failure to properly investigate and examine the legal situation and the issuing of a written judgment constitutes a violation of the law. The defendant’s appeal was therefore found to be justified, and the judgment was REVERSED unanimously on 30.03.2015…” (Supreme Court, 16th Criminal Chamber, 2015/761 E., 2015/414 K., 30.03.2015)
Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Yasemin ERAK
