The Crime of Misuse of a Blank Signature in Turkish Law

THE CRIME OF MISUSE OF A BLANK SIGNATURE

The misuse of a blank signature constitutes a crime. A blank signature is the signing of a paper that either carries no writing or has writing that does not express a decision. This crime is sanctioned under the section on crimes against society in the Turkish Penal Code. A partially or fully signed blank paper given to someone to be filled in a specific manner must be filled according to the given purpose. If the paper is filled differently from its intended purpose, the crime of misuse of a blank signature occurs.

The crime of misuse of a blank signature can occur in 2 different ways. These are:

1. Misuse of a delivered blank signed paper

In this case, the person voluntarily gives the paper to the perpetrator. If the paper is filled contrary to the giver’s wish or the reason it was given, the person is punished. It does not matter who delivered the blank signed paper. Third parties may also have delivered this paper to the perpetrator with the consent of the signature owner. The crime occurs once the perpetrator fills the paper. It is not necessary for the perpetrator to actually use the filled paper.

Important considerations:

– The signature must be genuine.

– The signed blank paper should not be an official or private document (otherwise, forgery comes into play).

If these conditions are met, the crime is established. However, it should be noted that in this scenario, the investigation and prosecution of the crime depend on the victim’s complaint. If the victim does not file a complaint, the authorities cannot investigate this crime even if it has occurred.

2. Filling of unlawfully obtained or possessed paper

In this case, the blank paper is filled by the perpetrator without the victim’s consent. The perpetrator is punished according to the provisions of forgery. In this situation, an investigation and prosecution are conducted by the authorities without requiring the victim’s complaint. Accordingly;

– There must be a partially or fully blank signed paper.

– The perpetrator must have obtained or possessed this paper unlawfully.

– The perpetrator must fill the paper in a way that creates legal consequences.

PENALTIES FOR THE CRIME OF MISUSE OF A BLANK SIGNATURE

1. If the blank signed paper is misused by the perpetrator, the penalty is imprisonment from THREE MONTHS TO ONE YEAR. Due to the short-term nature of this imprisonment, it can be converted to a judicial fine if other conditions are met.

2. If the blank signed paper is filled after being unlawfully obtained or possessed, the penalty is imposed according to the provisions of forgery.

If the conditions are met, a decision of deferring the announcement of the verdict may be issued.

EVIDENCE IN THE CRIME OF MISUSE OF A BLANK SIGNATURE

The victim cannot usually prove their claim with witnesses. This is stipulated in Article 201 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is an obligation to prove with a document against a document. However, this obligation only applies to the parties of the document, and third parties who are not party to the document can legally prove their claims with witnesses.

COMPETENT AND AUTHORIZED COURT

The court of first instance is competent in cases arising from the crime of misuse of a blank signature. However, if there are independent crime types such as fraud in addition to the crime of misuse of a blank signature in the specific case, the heavy penal court is competent.

COMPLAINT PERIOD AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE CRIME OF MISUSE OF A BLANK SIGNATURE

If the blank signed paper delivered by the perpetrator is filled contrary to the reason it was given, the investigation of the crime depends on the victim’s complaint. As a rule, the victim must report this within 6 months. The complaint period is 6 months. The second case, the filling of unlawfully obtained or possessed paper, is not subject to complaint.

The statute of limitations is 8 years. If the case is not filed within 8 years of the occurrence of the crime, the statute of limitations will apply, and no investigation or prosecution can be conducted. To avoid potential losses of rights, you can start your legal process with a criminal lawyer in Istanbul.

EXAMPLES OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE CRIME OF MISUSE OF A BLANK SIGNATURE

“In the public case filed against the defendant for the crime of misuse of a blank signature by filling out and submitting to enforcement a blank promissory note given by the complainant as security for the amounts paid to the complainant for the shares of land purchased informally from the complainant; it is stated that the investigation of the crime of misuse of a blank signature depends on a complaint, and Article 73/2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 specifies that the complaint period starts from the date the act and the perpetrator are learned. It is understood that an enforcement proceeding was initiated against the complainant based on the promissory note subject to the crime by the defendant on 06.12.2012, and that the payment order was duly notified to the complainant on 07.12.2012, and that the complainant must be deemed to have learned of the act and the perpetrator on this date. Therefore, the opinion in the notification requesting the reversal in this direction was not agreed upon.

11th Criminal Chamber         2017/4989 E.  ,  2017/7888 K.

“In the incident where the complainant rented a vehicle from the defendant who operates a car rental business, and therefore, signed and gave a blank promissory note to the defendant as security, and later made a traffic accident with this vehicle, and the vehicle owner filed a lawsuit against the insurance company to receive the insurance amount and the lawsuit was partially accepted, the defendant demanded the remaining repair cost from the complainant, and the complainant fulfilled this demand, but the promissory note was not returned to the complainant by the defendant, and later, the defendant filled out the promissory note subject to the crime and initiated enforcement proceedings against the complainant, and the complainant filed a criminal complaint in response to this, during the investigation phase, it was determined that the portions other than the signatures were written by the defendant, and during the prosecution phase, it was determined by the expert that the writings on the promissory note were written after the signatures and different pens were used. In the public case filed with the High Criminal Court for aggravated fraud, the court decided that the act did not constitute the crime of aggravated fraud but the crime of “misuse of a blank signature” regulated in Article 209/1 of the Turkish Penal Code and referred the file to the competent Court of Peace. … The Court of Peace acquitted the defendant of the charge of “misuse of a blank signature” and explicitly stated this in the judgment.

15th Criminal Chamber         2013/28881 E.  ,  2016/3926 K.

“In the public case filed against the defendant for the crime of misuse of a blank signature by filling out and submitting to enforcement a blank promissory note obtained from the complainant… it is stated that the investigation of the crime of misuse of a blank signature depends on a complaint, and Article 73/2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 specifies that the complaint period starts from the date the act and the perpetrator are learned. It is understood that an enforcement proceeding was initiated against the complainant based on the promissory note subject to the crime by the defendant on 06.12.2012, and that the payment order was duly notified to the complainant on 07.12.2012, and that the complainant must be deemed to have learned of the act and the perpetrator on this date. Therefore, the opinion in the notification requesting the reversal in this direction was not agreed upon.

11th Criminal Chamber         2017/4989 E.  ,  2017/7888 K.

“The public case filed against the defendant for the crime of misuse of a blank signature by filling out and submitting to enforcement a blank promissory note obtained from the complainant for vehicle rental, where the complainant signed and gave the blank promissory note to the defendant as security, and later made a traffic accident with this vehicle, and the vehicle owner filed a lawsuit against the insurance company to receive the insurance amount and the lawsuit was partially accepted, the defendant demanded the remaining repair cost from the complainant, and the complainant fulfilled this demand, but the promissory note was not returned to the complainant by the defendant, and later, the defendant filled out the promissory note subject to the crime and initiated enforcement proceedings against the complainant, and the complainant filed a criminal complaint in response to this, during the investigation phase, it was determined that the portions other than the signatures were written by the defendant, and during the prosecution phase, it was determined by the expert that the writings on the promissory note were written after the signatures and different pens were used. In the public case filed with the High Criminal Court for aggravated fraud, the court decided that the act did not constitute the crime of aggravated fraud but the crime of “misuse of a blank signature” regulated in Article 209/1 of the Turkish Penal Code and referred the file to the competent Court of Peace. … The Court of Peace acquitted the defendant of the charge of “misuse of a blank signature” and explicitly stated this

in the judgment.

15th Criminal Chamber         2013/28881 E.  ,  2016/3926 K.

“The public case filed against the defendant for the crime of misuse of a blank signature by filling out and submitting to enforcement a blank promissory note obtained from the complainant, where the complainant signed and gave the blank promissory note to the defendant as security, and later made a traffic accident with this vehicle, and the vehicle owner filed a lawsuit against the insurance company to receive the insurance amount and the lawsuit was partially accepted, the defendant demanded the remaining repair cost from the complainant, and the complainant fulfilled this demand, but the promissory note was not returned to the complainant by the defendant, and later, the defendant filled out the promissory note subject to the crime and initiated enforcement proceedings against the complainant, and the complainant filed a criminal complaint in response to this, during the investigation phase, it was determined that the portions other than the signatures were written by the defendant, and during the prosecution phase, it was determined by the expert that the writings on the promissory note were written after the signatures and different pens were used. In the public case filed with the High Criminal Court for aggravated fraud, the court decided that the act did not constitute the crime of aggravated fraud but the crime of “misuse of a blank signature” regulated in Article 209/1 of the Turkish Penal Code and referred the file to the competent Court of Peace. … The Court of Peace acquitted the defendant of the charge of “misuse of a blank signature” and explicitly stated this in the judgment.

15th Criminal Chamber         2013/28881 E.  ,  2016/3926 K.

“The public case filed against the defendant for the crime of misuse of a blank signature by filling out and submitting to enforcement a blank promissory note obtained from the complainant. It is stated that the investigation of the crime of misuse of a blank signature depends on a complaint, and Article 73/2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 specifies that the complaint period starts from the date the act and the perpetrator are learned. It is understood that an enforcement proceeding was initiated against the complainant based on the promissory note subject to the crime by the defendant on 06.12.2012, and that the payment order was duly notified to the complainant on 07.12.2012, and that the complainant must be deemed to have learned of the act and the perpetrator on this date. Therefore, the opinion in the notification requesting the reversal in this direction was not agreed upon.

11th Criminal Chamber         2017/4989 E.  ,  2017/7888 K.

“The public case filed against the defendant for the crime of misuse of a blank signature by filling out and submitting to enforcement a blank promissory note obtained from the complainant for vehicle rental, where the complainant signed and gave the blank promissory note to the defendant as security, and later made a traffic accident with this vehicle, and the vehicle owner filed a lawsuit against the insurance company to receive the insurance amount and the lawsuit was partially accepted, the defendant demanded the remaining repair cost from the complainant, and the complainant fulfilled this demand, but the promissory note was not returned to the complainant by the defendant, and later, the defendant filled out the promissory note subject to the crime and initiated enforcement proceedings against the complainant, and the complainant filed a criminal complaint in response to this, during the investigation phase, it was determined that the portions other than the signatures were written by the defendant, and during the prosecution phase, it was determined by the expert that the writings on the promissory note were written after the signatures and different pens were used. In the public case filed with the High Criminal Court for aggravated fraud, the court decided that the act did not constitute the crime of aggravated fraud but the crime of “misuse of a blank signature” regulated in Article 209/1 of the Turkish Penal Code and referred the file to the competent Court of Peace. … The Court of Peace acquitted the defendant of the charge of “misuse of a blank signature” and explicitly stated this in the judgment.

15th Criminal Chamber         2013/28881 E.  ,  2016/3926 K.

“The public case filed against the defendant for the crime of misuse of a blank signature by filling out and submitting to enforcement a blank promissory note obtained from the complainant for vehicle rental, where the complainant signed and gave the blank promissory note to the defendant as security, and later made a traffic accident with this vehicle, and the vehicle owner filed a lawsuit against the insurance company to receive the insurance amount and the lawsuit was partially accepted, the defendant demanded the remaining repair cost from the complainant, and the complainant fulfilled this demand, but the promissory note was not returned to the complainant by the defendant, and later, the defendant filled out the promissory note subject to the crime and initiated enforcement proceedings against the complainant, and the complainant filed a criminal complaint in response to this, during the investigation phase, it was determined that the portions other than the signatures were written by the defendant, and during the prosecution phase, it was determined by the expert that the writings on the promissory note were written after the signatures and different pens were used. In the public case filed with the High Criminal Court for aggravated fraud, the court decided that the act did not constitute the crime of aggravated fraud but the crime of “misuse of a blank signature” regulated in Article 209/1 of the Turkish Penal Code and referred the file to the competent Court of Peace. … The Court of Peace acquitted the defendant of the charge of “misuse of a blank signature” and explicitly stated this in the judgment.

15th Criminal Chamber         2013/28881 E.  ,  2016/3926 K.
“`
For more help or consultation on this topic, please contact us.