The Crime Of Looting In Housing Or Add-Ons

T.C. SUPREME
6. Main Number of the Criminal Department: 2011/21386
Decision No : 2014/14108 Decision Date: 08.07.2014

THE CRIME OF LOOTING IN HOUSING OR ITS ANNEXES – THE ACT OF
REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT IT CONSTITUTES THE CRIME OF RESTRICTING FREEDOM
BY BEING MISTAKEN IN THE APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDGMENT – VIOLATION OF JUDGMENT

SUMMARY: Defendant V. …..A. Who participated in more than the amount of the receivable. ….the defendant, who has no legal claim from S. …. TCK No. 765 of the act of forcibly signing the promissory note to the participant together with?looting regulated in article nun; The establishment of a verdict by making a mistake in the assessment of evidence and the nature of a crime, without considering that the crime of looting regulated in Article 5237 and the crime of restricting freedom regulated in Article of the same Law constitute a crime, necessitated a violation.
(765 P. K. m. 499) (5237 Pp. K. m. 109, 149)
Case: The verdict given by the Local Court was appealed; the file was discussed according to the nature of the application, the type of punishment, its duration and the date of the crime:
Verdict: According to the occurrence, the contents of the file, the statements of the victims and witnesses and the evasive defenses of the defendants, the participant A. ….’s defendant V. ….. 1 billion TL borrowed money, in exchange for 2,5.he issued a billion TL promissory note, borrowed 2.5 billion TL by making a 7-month maturity for 1 billion due to the defendant’s usury, and joined when the promissory note became due, defendant V.when the defendant, who paid 1 billion TL paid to the participant, asked to write the payment made by the participant on the back of the bill, the defendant S. ….’A, who joined a week later, said that there was no need for this because they were friends and refused his request. while sitting in the coffee shop, the defendants called to them under the pretext of talking, they started walking on the road, suddenly accused V.the accused they forced into the house of S.ten days after participating, the accused S. forcibly signed one 3,5 billion TL and one blank deed by holding a pistol to his head at home and released him. when they met him on the way, when he said that he had saved money and would pay the price of the promissory note, he said that he was the said defendant, and participant A, who thought that the promissory note had been turned over.a week later, he learned that the deed, which was forcibly signed by the participant, had been put under surveillance by a third person, the defendant V filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office. …. in their defense at the stages, that he separated from his wife before the date of the incident, that he had money because he sold some of the belongings of his house, the participant A.defendant S. that he did not accept the crime against him that he lent money to 17.5 billion TL and bought a promissory note worth 20 billion TL. if he did not admit the crime at the stages, the witness Cemal …. defendant V.in exchange for the promissory note of the participating A.that he knew that he had given 1 billion liras to defendant S.’s brother witnessed….. the defendant is V.the elder brother of S.that he knew that you wanted him to give and collect 2,5 and 5 billion bills of exchange, witness Kadri …. defendant V.defendant V, who stated that he took the 20 billion dollar bond subject to the crime and gave it to the execution in exchange for giving it to mold.during the search of the house, the weapon indicated by the participant in the statements was found, the weapon was a dry-tight pistol, in the law enforcement superscription dated 17.03.2004, the defendant V. in the face of the understanding that … is not in a good financial condition, it cannot lend 20 billion to the participant, and it has been determined that the promissory note forcibly taken from the participant may be filled in at 20 billion;
Defendant V. …..A. Who participated in more than the amount of the receivable. ….the defendant, who has no legal claim from S. …. TCKnun 765 No. 499/1 of the act of forcibly signing the promissory note to the participant together with. organized looting the item; 5237 TCKnun 149/1-a-c-d of articles organized for the crime of plunder, of the same law 109/2-3-(A-B) without considering that creates the crime of restricting the freedom of the item held in evidence at the discretion of the qualification of the crime and treated as a reduction of the error in terms of the establishment of the written style,
Conclusion: It required disruption, defendants V. …. and s. ….. the appeals of the defenders’ appeals in this regard
since it has been seen on the spot, the provision may be violated as a request for the explained reason, according to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. according to Article 326 / last article of the Criminal Code No. 1412, it was unanimously decided on 08.07.2014 to protect the acquired rights of the defendants in terms of the duration-type and amount of the sentence imposed.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.