What is the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness?
“The crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness is regulated in Article 277, paragraph 1 of the Turkish Penal Code as follows: ‘In a pending case, anyone who attempts to unlawfully influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness in order to prevent the truth from emerging or to cause an injustice, by inducing them to make a decision, take an action, or make a statement that would result in an outcome in favor of or against the defendant, plaintiff, or victim, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to four years. If the attempt does not exceed the level of leniency, the penalty to be imposed shall be from six months to two years.’
Accordingly, this crime occurs when one or more parties to a case act unlawfully during the proceedings with the aim of having a decision made, an action taken, or a statement given in their favor, thereby attempting to alter the course of the case for the defendant or the victim.”
Aggravated Circumstance in the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness
“The aggravated circumstance of the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness is addressed in Article 277, paragraph 2 of the Turkish Penal Code as follows: ‘If the act constituting the offense in the first paragraph also constitutes another offense, the penalty to be imposed according to the provisions on the concurrence of offenses shall be increased by up to half.’
Accordingly, it can be understood from the provision that if the act constituting the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness also results in another offense in addition to the relevant crime, the rules on concurrence of offenses will apply, and the penalty imposed on the perpetrator will be increased by half.”
Yargı Görevi Yapanı, Bilirkişiyi veya Tanığı Etkilemeye Teşebbüs Suçunun
Cezası
Yargı görevi yapanı, bilirkişiyi veya tanığı etkilemeye teşebbüs suçunun cezası; TCK madde 277’de öngörüldüğü üzere, 2 yıldan 4 yıla kadar hapis cezası olmaktadır. Ancak; ilgili teşebbüsün iltimas yani ayrıcalık tanıma eylemini geçmemesi halinde ise ceza, 6 aydan 2 yıla kadar hapis cezası şeklinde düzenlenmektedir.
Ek olarak; nitelikli hal olarak bahsedilen yargı görevi yapanı, bilirkişiyi veya tanığı etkilemeye teşebbüs suçunun suç eyleminin başka bir suçu daha oluşturması halinde ceza, yarısı oranında artırılmaktadır.
Competent and Authorized Court in the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness
In criminal cases regarding the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness, the competent court with jurisdiction is the court where the last act of enforcement took place (Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code), while the authorized court is the Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters. In this context, the parties may need a criminal lawyer, including a criminal lawyer in Antalya, to file and follow up the relevant case.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness Be Converted to a Judicial Fine?
A judicial fine is a type of sanction that can be applied either together with a prison sentence imposed for a committed crime or independently. In addition, for a judicial fine to be imposed, the crime must have been committed intentionally, and the imposed sentence must be less than one year. Therefore, a prison sentence imposed for the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness cannot be converted into a judicial fine due to the length of the sentence. However, if the attempt remains at the level of leniency as stated in Article 277, paragraph 2 of the Turkish Penal Code, the prison sentence to be imposed can be converted into a judicial fine.
2. Can a Decision to Postpone the Announcement of the Verdict Be Issued in the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness?
A decision to postpone the announcement of the verdict essentially allows the sentence imposed on the defendant not to take effect during the relevant probation period. In this regard, it should be noted that if the defendant, against whom a postponed announcement of the verdict (PAV) decision has been issued, fulfills certain conditions during the probation period, the imposed sentence is annulled and the case is dismissed. Accordingly, it is also possible to issue a postponed announcement of the verdict (PAV) decision for a prison sentence imposed due to the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness.
3. Is the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness a Complaint-Based Offense?
The crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness is not among the complaint-based offenses; it is investigated ex officio by the public prosecutor, and therefore, there is no complaint period.
4. Is Reconciliation Possible in the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness?
Reconciliation aims to facilitate communication and agreement between the person accused of the crime and the victim as an intermediary. However, the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness is not among the offenses eligible for reconciliation.
Some Supreme Court Decisions Regarding the Crime of Attempting to Influence a Judicial Officer, Expert, or Witness
- “In the concrete case; the defendant, who was detained in prison for another crime, in his petition dated 05.02.2014 addressed to the Adana 2nd High Criminal Court, file number 2014/123, briefly stated that he had received information suggesting that Devrim Yalap had taken responsibility for the murder in question and expressed his desire to contribute. Subsequently, in his testimony given on 12.06.2014 as a witness before the mentioned court, he declared that what he wrote in his petition was not true and that he had sent the petition accusing Sayim and Şemsettin Yalap out of revenge. However, it could not be conclusively determined whether the content of the petition was true or false, or whether his testimony given as a witness in court was made under duress. Considering that the court accepted the accuracy of his statements given as a witness, it was concluded that the crime of false testimony would not be established. If the petition sent from prison is accepted as an application made to give false testimony, the act falls within the scope of Article 36 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK); outside of this acceptance, the act of submitting a petition does not constitute the material element of the crime explained above. Establishing a written conviction without taking this into account is contrary to the law. The defendant’s appeal objections were therefore found justified, and it was unanimously decided on 17.11.2015 to overturn the judgment for these reasons.” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 16th Criminal Chamber, dated 17.11.2015, file number 2015/5678, decision number 2015/4321)
- “In the case registered under file number 2008/385 at the İzmir 3rd High Criminal Court concerning the murder of the defendant’s brother, the defendant, on 08.06.2009, called the complainant, who was serving as the defense attorney in the case, and threatened him by stating that if he continued to follow the case, he would harm him, disable him after the trial date, force people he hired to commit sexual assault, and shoot him in the courthouse corridor if he filed a complaint with the prosecutor. This act, which constituted a threat aimed at preventing a judicial officer from performing their duty under Article 6/1-d of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), was mischaracterized as the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer under Article 277/1 of the TCK, without considering that it actually constitutes the crime of resisting the performance of a duty regulated in Article 265/2 of the TCK. Establishing a conviction based on a mistaken assessment of the nature of the crime and insufficient reasoning is contrary to the law. The defendant’s appeal objections were therefore found justified, and it was unanimously decided on 08.05.2018 to overturn the judgment for these reasons in accordance with Article 8 of Law No. 5320 and the relevant provisions of the currently applicable Article 1412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMUK).” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 12th Criminal Chamber, dated 08.05.2018, file number 2018/2500, decision number 2018/5254)
- “According to the incident and the case file; after a divorce case was filed against the defendant by his spouse, the victim … applied to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, stating in a complaint dated 02.03.2011 that, although she had witnessed the family problems and fights of the defendant and his spouse living as tenants in her house, she refused to testify because she had previously been threatened by the defendant. Following the initiation of a judicial investigation and the subsequent trial, it was alleged and accepted that the defendant committed the crime of threat by saying to the victim, who was sitting in front of her house on the street: ‘I will beat you, do not interfere in my family affairs.’ This situation necessitated the overturning of the judgment, and since the defendant’s appeal objections were therefore found justified, it was unanimously decided on 07.02.2018 to overturn the judgment for these reasons pursuant to Article 8 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the currently applicable Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 (CMUK).” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 12th Criminal Chamber, dated 07.02.2018, file number 2017/4300, decision number 2018/1184)
- “Regarding the complainant …, following the conviction of the defendant … for intentionally killing his stepson, issued by the Fethiye High Criminal Court on 28.11.2011, file number 2010/222-2011/271, which was appealed by the trial prosecutor and the complainant’s attorney on the grounds that the conditions for self-defense were present, the defendant … and his spouse sent a petition addressed to witness …, who was the President of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and involved in the file registered under 2012/3686, scheduled for a hearing on 28.11.2012. In the petition, they stated that they had received an electronic communication indicating that the deputy district president of a political party known to the witness during his work in Fethiye would attempt to overturn the decision due to non-application of the self-defense ruling and expressed concern over the rumors. They added, “…Although we never and under no circumstances believe such statements, we thought you should be informed. Such statements aim to tarnish the name and profession of judicial officers. The purpose of writing this letter is to alert the aforementioned individuals, if you know them, so that no room is given to such rumors. As parents, we are in great distress due to this sensitive matter. However, such statements regarding the judiciary exacerbate this distress. Therefore, even if these individuals are not known to you, especially the person named … reported as the hotel owner, due to their activities, you may consider filing a criminal complaint. We have full trust in your justice and integrity. Our only purpose in writing this letter is to inform you, and we have no doubt that you will take appropriate action. We apologize for taking your time and wish you success in your work. (The received letter is attached.) Sincerely, and best regards.”
- An attachment to the petition included a printout from a computer of the electronic communication supporting the explanations in the petition, the sender of which could not be determined. A case was filed against the defendant for the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness under Article 277 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Despite the defense’s claim, there was no evidence in the file showing that the electronic communication in the petition attachment was created by the defendant or that it was forged. The defendant’s act was limited to submitting the electronic communication, containing statements regarding the appeal file, to the case file along with a petition aimed at informing the head of the chamber conducting the appeal. Without considering that the legal elements of the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness were not fulfilled, the court convicted the defendant instead of acquitting him. This was contrary to law, and since the defendant’s appeal objections were found justified, it was unanimously decided on 03.04.2019 to overturn the judgment for these reasons pursuant to Article 8 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the currently applicable Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 (CMUK).” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 12th Criminal Chamber, dated 03.04.2019, file number 2018/7532, decision number 2019/4457)
- “In the material facts of the case, which are undisputed; considering that the defendant knew the plaintiff’s lawyer because of this incident, there was no prior personal animosity between them, and aside from the threatening words, actions such as promising to pay three times the attorney fees to ensure withdrawal from the case were taken into account; the motive or intent directing the defendant to commit the crime was not to prevent the lawyer from performing a routine judicial duty, but rather to prevent any defense for the perpetrator held responsible for the killing of the defendant’s brother in the ongoing trial, with whom the defendant had a personal enmity, thereby attempting to impose his own version of events rather than the material truth the court would reach. There is no doubt that denying the suspect or defendant the legal assistance of their chosen defense counsel naturally restricts the right to defense and violates the principle of fair trial. Although the legal interest violated by the crime and the victim’s perspective constitute the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, I do not concur with the majority’s opinion classifying it as the crime of resisting the performance of duty. Accordingly, four members of the Criminal General Assembly who did not agree with the majority opinion cast dissenting votes, believing that the defendant’s actions constitute the crime of attempting to influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness. RESULT: For the reasons explained; 1- The objection of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court is REJECTED, 2- The file is REFERRED to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court to be sent to the relevant jurisdiction. During the deliberation on 11.03.2021, it was unanimously decided that the act did not constitute the crime of threat; by majority vote, it was decided that it constituted the crime of resisting the performance of duty against judicial officers.” (Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly, dated 11.03.2021, file number 2019/27, decision number 2021/101)
