TO THE PRESIDENCY OF HIGH CRIMINAL COURT
FILE NO: …/… E.
DEFENDANT:
DEFENSE:
SUBJECT: Our Petition Contains Our Defenses on the Substantive.
DESCRIPTIONS :
1-) Since the prosecutor’s office gave an opinion on the merits at the session of your court dated …
2-) First of all, we would like to point out that the crime that is the subject of the lawsuit, which is regulated in Article 252 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, is defined in Article 4 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657, and against those who perform public duties, as clearly stated in the same article. It is a crime reserved for other officials who are considered equal. However, the client defendant is not included in any of these in terms of the task he is carrying out. We are of the opinion that a wrong characterization has been made by the prosecution in this regard.
3-) Although it is thought that the qualification made for a moment is correct, which does not necessarily mean acceptance, the alleged benefit to the accused client as a bribe was provided with the aim of encouraging him to fulfill or not fulfill the requirements of his duty, and is not a reward suitable for fulfilling this purpose. is a customary gift for the purpose of congratulating him on his new assignment. However, no evaluation has been made by your court, either directly or through an expert, as to whether this is the case.
4-) Moreover, no suggestion was made by the other accused/defendants whom he met on the date of the crime and that he had known before, in a way that would cause him to fulfill or fail to fulfill his duty in relation to his duty, and there was an explicit or implicit agreement with the other accused/defendants in this way. There is no agreement either. The other accused/defendants only requested the client defendant to mediate in the meeting they were considering to hold on an issue with the out-of-court … In this regard, there has been no suggestion made by the client defendant to the other accused/defendant and/or out-of-court… The client accused openly informed the other accused/defendants that, upon this request, he would talk to the out-of-court person, but that he could not make any assessment as to whether such a meeting would be accepted or not. This is also confirmed by the statements of the other defendants and of … who was there at the time and was heard by your court as a witness. Therefore, the moral element of the alleged crime did not occur.
5-) In addition to all these, we would like to point out that even if it is thought for a moment that the other accused/defendant intends to do business with bribery, the subject targeted in this way is completely outside the definition of the accused client’s duty and authority, and the other accused/defendant wants to discuss. even out of litigation, it is not authorized to decide or act on its own in accordance with business principles and rules. This issue has not been properly investigated.
6-) In this situation, it is not possible to agree with the opinion of the prosecution office, which includes the conviction that the client defendant should be punished in accordance with the relevant article for the crime of bribery.
CONCLUSION AND CLAIM: For the reasons we have tried to explain above, I submit and request, by proxy, that the accused client be acquitted of the charge of bribery, and if your court decides otherwise at the end of the evaluation, the application of the law articles in favor of the accused client and the legal reduction reasons…/… /…
Defendant Advocate
Lawyer
