T.C. SUPREME COURT
7.Criminal Department
Base: 2014/28371
Decision: 2016/9088
Date of Decision: 30.06.2016
CRIME OF SMUGGLING – THE NEED TO ADD TRIAL EXPENSES TO THE PREPAYMENT AMOUNT – THE RELATIVE FEE AND THE RELATIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PREPAYMENT AMOUNT, SUGGESTING PREPAYMENT OVER THE EXCESS AMOUNT – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
ABSTRACT: While the defendants were advised to consider their actions as collective smuggling due to the act they committed together and to be jointly liable for 4.5 times the customs value of the goods determined by the expert, the relative fee and the relative power of attorney should be added to the prepayment amount only during the trial, without considering that the relative fee and the relative power of attorney should also be included in the prepayment amount, suggesting a prepayment over the excess amount required the provision to be overturned.
(4926 P. K. m. 4, 5) (5237 P. K. m. 53, 54) (5320 Pp. K. m. 8) (5271 p. K. m. 226)
Case and Decision: The decision given by the local court was appealed and the application was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation after the file was read according to the nature, type of punishment, duration and date of the crime;
I. In the examination conducted in respect of the request of the deputy of the Customs Administration participating in the appeal against the acquittal verdict issued against the defendant …;
According to the evidence collected and disclosed at the place of decision, the justification shown and the discretion of the Customs Administration deputy who participated in the hearing, the rejection of appeals not seen on the spot and the APPROVAL of the decision as requested,
II. During the examination of the deputy of the Customs Administration participating in the provision of conviction established against the defendant … and the defendant … in terms of appeals;
Contrary to the defendant’s defense that he committed a breakthrough crime, there is not enough evidence to punish him, without regard to his acquittal, instead of his conviction in writing,
Contrary to the law, the accused … and the deputy of the participating Customs Administration are therefore considered on the spot because of the appeals of Law 8/1 of Law 5320.article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force in accordance with its article. DETERIORATION in accordance with the article,
III. In the examination conducted in respect of the appeals requests of the Deputy Customs Administration, the accused, the accused and the defense who participated in the provisions of the convictions established against the defendants …, …, … and Ali …;
1.Decisions on the detection of communication should be made with incomplete research without being brought to the file in a way that allows the audit,
2.Due to the act committed by the defendants together, their actions are considered mass smuggling and the defendants are advised to pay 4.5 times the customs value of the goods calculated by the expert to be mutually responsible for 4.5 times the value of the trial fee and the relative proxy fee should be added to the prepayment amount during the trial, without considering that the relative fee and the relative proxy fee should also be included in the prepayment amount to make a prepayment offer over the excess amount,
By admission, too;
1.226 of the CMK by establishing a conviction for collective trafficking in accordance with Article 5 / last of Law No. 4926 without granting october right of additional defense to the defendants who have been sued for smuggling if their rights are established. violation of the article,
in accordance with Article 5 / last of the Law No. 2.4926, 4/3 of the said Law after the increase in the punishment of the defendants was made.according to the article, it is necessary to increase the value while making a decision in writing,
3.26/04/2006 a written provision has been made in the dated indictment regarding the confiscation of the transport vehicle, which has no confiscation case, without regard to the fact that the confiscation of the transport vehicle has not been requested, october additional indictment has not been issued in this regard,
4.4/4 of the Law No. 4926 on illicit beverages subject to crime.article 20 of the Law, which also refers to transport vehicles.according to Article 54 of the Turkish Commercial Code, confiscation must be decided upon. confiscation according to the article,
Conclusion: Contrary to the law, since the appeals of the deputy of the Customs Administration, the accused, the accused and the defense are therefore considered in place, the Law No. 5320 8/1. article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force in accordance with its article.its DETERIORATION in accordance with the article was decided unanimously on 30.06.2016. (¤¤)
