T.C.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
5. CD Base. 2014/5743 Decision. 2014/6848 Date19.6.2014
CASE : M., accused of loan sharking. Sh.in accordance with Article 241/1 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237. in accordance with article ( three times) of the Decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance of Erbaa dated 6.11.2012 and based on 2009/326, 2012/506 on the punishment of 3 years in prison ( three times;
Although the court sentenced the defendant to three separate usury charges for his actions against all three clients, Law No. 5237 241. the item held in the crime of usury to occur in a systematic and continuous manner to more than one person needs to lend money at interest, and in the number of victims will not occur without a separate crime any more punishment that has not been seen in determining the defendant in writing about hitting Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271 bet. according to the article, the General Directorate of criminal affairs of the Ministry of justice corruption in the reason of High 22.4.2014 94660652-105-60-0673-2014 day and worded.8279.28257 disrupt the benefit of the law with reference to the case by the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court and the papers are deposited with tebligname with flat tip, but duly noted:
DECISION : ARTICLE 241 of the TCC No. 5237, which entered into force on 1.6.2005. according to this regulation, in order for the crime to occur, the defendant only needs to lend money to one person, and it does not matter whether he turns this business into a profession, therefore, it cannot be said that the crime is committed and that lending money to more than one person constitutes a single crime, but it is understood that he has committed the crime of usury more than once and against more than one person at different times as part of the execution of a criminal decision it is not a separate crime about the accused, since it is understood that the provisions of the chained crime should be applied and the request to disrupt it for the benefit of the law is considered to be in place based on this justification, the acceptance of the request,
CONCLUSION: The Decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance of Erbaa No. 6.11.2012 dated and based on 2009/326, 2012/506 was issued on the 309th of the CMK. DETERIORATION in accordance with article 4 of the same article. by the authority granted by subparagraph (d) of paragraph; in subparagraph ( A) of TCK No. 5237, article 241/1. according to Article 43/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code, since it is understood that the defendant has been assigned a 3-year prison sentence, he has committed his act with consolation against more than one victim. the increase in the rate of ¼ in accordance by the defendant to be punished with a prison sentence of 3 years and 9 months, called to be corrected, ( B ) and ( C ) in paragraphs separately for each 3-year prison sentence to be removed from the provisions of that section to the determination of the execution of imprisonment of 3 years and 9 months to be made through the provision of the other parts of that to protect the evacuation order dated 17.6.2014 money demand with the complaint, the defendant established the nature of the provision of counsel and after considering the nature of the request for review of DENIAL of the file to be sent to the scene of the Supreme Court C. The transfer to the Prosecutor General’s Office was made by unanimous decision on 19.06.2014.
You can read others by clicking here.
