THE LEGAL CHARACTERISTIC OF ROBBERY FOR THE COLLECTION OF DEBT AND THE IDEAL CONCURRENCE WITH THE OFFENCE OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

Ertuğrul Ünal

Makale detayları

THE LEGAL CHARACTERISTIC OF ROBBERY FOR THE COLLECTION OF DEBT AND THE IDEAL CONCURRENCE WITH THE OFFENCE OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

Yazarlar:

Ertuğrul Ünal

Yayıncı:

Selcuk University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.33 Issue 1, pp.391-434

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

3/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343923

pISSN:

1306-8075

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 If a person uses force and threats against the debtor in order to collect hisher receivables based on a legal relationship, the crime of plunder for the purpose of collection of receivables regulated in paragraph 1 of Article 150 of the TPC occurs. There are various opinions in the doctrine on the legal nature of this offense. In practice, it is possible to come across decisions that this act will constitute intentional injury and threat crimes, not plunder, mainly due to the reference in the article. In cases where the continuous offense constitutes a means of committing the immediate offense, the unity of the act is not accepted in Turkish law and separate penalties are imposed for both offenses. In the event that the force and threat in the crime of plunder for the collection of debt limits the victims freedom of movement, even for a short period of time, there is an overlap between the qualified form of deprivation of liberty Art. 1092 and the executive acts of the crime of plunder for the collection of debt. In such cases, our study will examine whether the provisions of intellectual cumulation should be applied. In Jurisprudence, when a person is deprived of hisher liberty while committing the crime of plunder for the purpose of collecting the receivables, heshe is also sentenced for the crime of deprivation of liberty. In our opinion, in such cases, imposing an additional penalty for the qualified form of the crime of deprivation of liberty, which is the use of force or threats to commit the act or during the commission of the act Art. 1092, constitutes a violation of the prohibition of double punishment. In addition to this, considering the possibility that the perpetrator may not be able to collect hisher receivables, it comes to the agenda to impose a higher penalty for the act with less unfair content compared to the attempted plunder crime. In our article, how to proceed in cases where the offenses of plunder for the collection of debt and deprivation of liberty are committed in close proximity in terms of time and place will be discussed within the scope of the theories of uniqueness of action and the legal nature of the crime of plunder for the collection of debt.

 If a person uses force and threats against the debtor in order to collect hisher receivables based on a legal relationship, the crime of plunder for the purpose of collection of receivables regulated in paragraph 1 of Article 150 of the TPC occurs. There are various opinions in the doctrine on the legal nature of this offense. In practice, it is possible to come across decisions that this act will constitute intentional injury and threat crimes, not plunder, mainly due to the reference in the article. In cases where the continuous offense constitutes a means of committing the immediate offense, the unity of the act is not accepted in Turkish law and separate penalties are imposed for both offenses. In the event that the force and threat in the crime of plunder for the collection of debt limits the victims freedom of movement, even for a short period of time, there is an overlap between the qualified form of deprivation of liberty Art. 1092 and the executive acts of the crime of plunder for the collection of debt. In such cases, our study will examine whether the provisions of intellectual cumulation should be applied. In Jurisprudence, when a person is deprived of hisher liberty while committing the crime of plunder for the purpose of collecting the receivables, heshe is also sentenced for the crime of deprivation of liberty. In our opinion, in such cases, imposing an additional penalty for the qualified form of the crime of deprivation of liberty, which is the use of force or threats to commit the act or during the commission of the act Art. 1092, constitutes a violation of the prohibition of double punishment. In addition to this, considering the possibility that the perpetrator may not be able to collect hisher receivables, it comes to the agenda to impose a higher penalty for the act with less unfair content compared to the attempted plunder crime. In our article, how to proceed in cases where the offenses of plunder for the collection of debt and deprivation of liberty are committed in close proximity in terms of time and place will be discussed within the scope of the theories of uniqueness of action and the legal nature of the crime of plunder for the collection of debt.

 If a person uses force and threats against the debtor in order to collect hisher receivables based on a legal relationship, the crime of plunder for the purpose of collection of receivables regulated in paragraph 1 of Article 150 of the TPC occurs. There are various opinions in the doctrine on the legal nature of this offense. In practice, it is possible to come across decisions that this act will constitute intentional injury and threat crimes, not plunder, mainly due to the reference in the article. In cases where the continuous offense constitutes a means of committing the immediate offense, the unity of the act is not accepted in Turkish law and separate penalties are imposed for both offenses. In the event that the force and threat in the crime of plunder for the collection of debt limits the victims freedom of movement, even for a short period of time, there is an overlap between the qualified form of deprivation of liberty Art. 1092 and the executive acts of the crime of plunder for the collection of debt. In such cases, our study will examine whether the provisions of intellectual cumulation should be applied. In Jurisprudence, when a person is deprived of hisher liberty while committing the crime of plunder for the purpose of collecting the receivables, heshe is also sentenced for the crime of deprivation of liberty. In our opinion, in such cases, imposing an additional penalty for the qualified form of the crime of deprivation of liberty, which is the use of force or threats to commit the act or during the commission of the act Art. 1092, constitutes a violation of the prohibition of double punishment. In addition to this, considering the possibility that the perpetrator may not be able to collect hisher receivables, it comes to the agenda to impose a higher penalty for the act with less unfair content compared to the attempted plunder crime. In our article, how to proceed in cases where the offenses of plunder for the collection of debt and deprivation of liberty are committed in close proximity in terms of time and place will be discussed within the scope of the theories of uniqueness of action and the legal nature of the crime of plunder for the collection of debt.

 Kişinin, hukuki bir ilişkiye dayanan alacağını tahsil amacıyla borçluya cebir ve tehdit uygulaması halinde, TCKnın 150nci maddenin 1inci fıkrasında düzenlenen alacağın tahsili amacıyla yağma suçu oluşur. Bu suçun hukuki niteliği konusunda doktrinde çeşitli görüşler mevcuttur. Uygulamada da bu fiilin esas itibariyle maddede yapılan atıf sebebiyle yağma değil, kasten yaralama ve tehdit suçlarını oluşturacağı yönünde kararlara rastlamak mümkündür. Mütemadi suçun, ani suçun işlenmesinde araç teşkil ettiği durumlarda, Türk hukukunda fiil ayniyeti kabul edilmemekte ve her iki suçtan ayrı ayrı ceza verilmektedir. Alacağın tahsili amacıyla yağma suçundaki cebir ve tehdidin, kısa süreli de olsa mağdurun hareket etme hürriyetini sınırlandırması halinde, kişiyi hürriyetinden yoksun kılmanın nitelikli hali m. 1092 ile alacağın tahsili amacıyla yağma suçlarının icra hareketleri arasında bir örtüşme meydana gelir. Böyle durumlarda fikri içtima hükümlerinin tatbikinin gerekip gerekmediği çalışmamızda incelenecektir. Uygulamada alacağın tahsili amacıyla yağma suçu işlenirken kişi hürriyetinden de mahrum kaldığında ayrıca kişiyi hürriyetinden yoksun kılma suçundan da ceza verilmektedir. Düşüncemize göre böyle durumlarda kişiyi hürriyetinden yoksun kılma suçunun nitelikli halini teşkil eden fiili işlemek için veya işlediği sırada cebir, tehdit kullanılması m. 1092 hükmünden ayrıca ceza verilmesi, çifte cezalandırma yasağına aykırılık teşkil eder. Buna ek olarak failin alacağını tahsil edememesi ihtimali de dikkate alındığında, teşebbüs aşamasında kalmış yağma suçuna nazaran haksızlık içeriği daha az olan fiilden, daha fazla cezaya hükmedilmesi gündeme gelmektedir. Makalemizde, alacağın tahsili amacıyla yağma ve kişiyi hürriyetinden yoksun kılma suçunun zaman ve mekân bakımından yakınlık içerisinde işlendiği olaylarda nasıl bir yol izlenmesi gerektiği, fiil tekliği teorileri ve alacağın tahsili amacıyla yağma suçunun hukuki niteliği kapsamında ele alınacaktır.

Makale detayları

THE LEGAL CHARACTERISTIC OF ROBBERY FOR THE COLLECTION OF DEBT AND THE IDEAL CONCURRENCE WITH THE OFFENCE OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

Yazarlar:

Ertuğrul Ünal

Yayıncı:

Selcuk University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.33 Issue 1, pp.391-434

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

3/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343923

pISSN:

1306-8075

Unity of Act

Plunder for the Collection of Legal Debt

Unity of Natural Movement

Deprivation of Liberty

Full Convergence

Partial Convergence.Fiil Tekliği

Alacağın Tahsili Amacıyla Yağma

Doğal Hareket Tekliği

Kişiyi Hürriyetinden Yoksun Kılma

Tam Ayniyet

Kısmi Ayniyet

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ertuğrul Ünal

Yayıncı: Selcuk University

Ana Başlıklar: Ceza Hukuku

Dergi: Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.33 Issue 1, pp.391-434

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 3/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001343923

pISSN: 1306-8075

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ertuğrul Ünal

Yayıncı:

Selcuk University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.33 Issue 1, pp.391-434

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

3/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343923

pISSN:

1306-8075