T.R. SUPREME COURT
7. Criminal Chamber
Basis: 2014/28371
Decision: 2016/9088
Decision Date: 30.06.2016
Smuggling Crime – JURISDICTION EXPENSES NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE AMOUNT OF PREPAID PAYMENT – PREPAYMENT PROPOSAL ON THE PROPOSAL OF THE PREPAID TO INCLUDE THE RELATIVE FEES AND RELATIVE ATTORNEY FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PREPAID PAYMENT –
SUMMARY: While the actions of the defendants are considered as mass smuggling and the defendants are jointly liable for 4.5 times the customs cleared value calculated from the CIF value of the goods determined by the expert, prepayment is proposed, without considering that only the litigation expenses incurred during the trial should be added to the prepayment amount. Suggesting a prepayment over the excess amount by including the prepayment fee in the prepayment amount necessitated the reversal of the provision.
Case and Decision: By appealing the judgment rendered by the local court; After the file was read according to the nature of the application, the type of punishment, its duration and the date of the crime, the necessity was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation;
I. In the examination made in terms of the appeal request of the attending Customs Administration’s attorney against the acquittal of the accused …;
APPROVAL of the judgment as a request, with the rejection of the objections of the Customs Administration representative who attended the hearing, the evidence collected and explained at the place of decision, the reason given and the discretion,
II. In the examination made in terms of the appeal requests of the Customs Administration representative and the accused, regarding the conviction of the accused …;
Contrary to his defense that the accused committed the imputed crime, a written verdict regarding his conviction instead of his acquittal, without considering that there is not sufficient evidence for his punishment,
As it is unlawful, the accused … and the customs administration representative’s appeals are deemed appropriate for this reason, it will be OVERFINED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which is in force pursuant to Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320,
III. In the examination made in terms of the appeal demands of the Customs Administration representative, the accused … … and the defendants … and … the defense counsel regarding the convictions of the defendants …, …, … and Ali …;
1. Decisions regarding the detection of communication are made with incomplete research without being brought to the file in a way that will allow auditing,
2. While the actions of the defendants are considered as collective smuggling and the defendants are jointly liable for 4.5 times the customs clearance value calculated from the CIF value of the goods determined by the expert, a prepayment proposal is made, without considering that only the litigation expenses incurred during the trial should be added to the prepayment amount. making a prepayment proposal over the excess amount by including the fee in the prepayment amount,
According to the acceptance;
1. Acting in violation of Article 226 of the CMK by establishing a judgment for the crime of mass smuggling in accordance with the 5/last article of the Law No.
After the increase in the sentence of the accused in accordance with the 5/final article of the Law No. 2.4926, a written decision should be made when the value increase should be made in accordance with the article 4/3 of the aforementioned Law,
Considering that the confiscation of the transport vehicle was not requested in the indictment dated 3.26/04/2006, and an additional indictment was not prepared in this regard, a written provision was made regarding the confiscation of the transport vehicle for which there was no confiscation case,
4. The confiscation of illegal liquor, which is the subject of crime, should be decided in accordance with Article 4/4 of the Law No. 4926, and the transportation vehicles should be confiscated in accordance with Article 54 of the TCK,
Conclusion: Since the objections of the Customs Administration representative, the accused … … and the defendants … and … of the defense counsel, which are against the law, are deemed appropriate for this reason, the 8/1 of the Law No. 5320. It was unanimously decided on 30.06.2016 that it should be VOID pursuant to article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412, which is in force pursuant to Article. (¤¤)
Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program
