Crimes Committed When a Public Official is Involved in the Crime of Robbery – Istanbul Criminal Lawyer

I. INTRODUCTION

In the criminal justice system, the crimes committed by some individuals may have more serious consequences than those committed by ordinary citizens. In particular, the commission of crimes by individuals holding the title of "public official," through abuse of power or by using their position as a means to an end, poses a greater threat to public order. In this context, a public official seizing property through force or threat constitute not only the classic crime of "robbery," but also other types of crimes.

The Turkish Penal Code regulates actions committed by public officials through abuse of power under different types of crimes. This study will analyze, from a legal perspective, actions against property carried out by public officials using force and threats; and will evaluate their relationship with "robbery" in particular, as well as with embezzlement, abuse of power , and other potential types of crimes.

II. THE CRIME OF ROBBERY AND ITS GENERAL DEFINITION (Turkish Penal Code Article 148)

A. Definition of the Crime of Robbery

The crime of robbery, as defined in Article 148 of the Turkish Penal Code, is as follows:

"The crime of robbery occurs when one person compels another to hand over their movable property through force or threat, or takes it directly."

The essential elements of this crime are:

• The act against the victim's property,

• The use of force or threat,

• The property passes into the possession of the perpetrator,

• It is when the perpetrator acts with the intention of obtaining economic gain.

III. STATUS OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

A. Who is a Public Official?

According to Article 6/c of ​​the Turkish Penal Code, a public official is:

"A person who participates in the performance of public service in public institutions and organizations, through appointment, election, or any other means, on a permanent, temporary, or provisional basis."

Therefore, this includes a large number of people such as civil servants, contract personnel, municipal employees, and law enforcement officers.

B. Severity in Cases Where a Public Official Commits a Crime

Being a public official makes the crime more serious because it involves the perpetrator abusing their public power or using the authority granted by that power to suppress the victim's will.

IV. TYPES OF CRIMES THAT MAY OCCUR WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS INVOLVED IN AN ACT OF ROBBERY

1. The Crime of Qualified Robbery (Turkish Penal Code Article 149/1-b)

Article 149 of the Turkish Penal Code regulates the aggravated forms of the crime of robbery. Accordingly:

"The penalty for robbery is increased if the crime is committed by impersonating a public official or abusing the influence afforded by being a public official."

In this case, the penalty is imprisonment for 10 to 15 years.

Note: Whether the perpetrator is actually a public official is irrelevant; what matters is that the title is used or that the perception of being a public official is created.

2. The Crime of Embezzlement (Turkish Penal Code Article 250)

The crime of "extortion" arises when a public official, using the authority and influence granted by their position, demands a bribe or goods from another person . According to Article 250 of the Turkish Penal Code:

"It is considered embezzlement when a public official abuses their position to gain personal benefit, either intentionally or by deceiving someone."

The differences between embezzlement and plunder are as follows:

3. Abuse of Office (Turkish Penal Code Article 257)

If a public official obtains a benefit from the victim solely through negligence or abuse of duty, without resorting to coercion or threats, this falls under Article 257 of the Turkish Penal Code.

"When a public official acts contrary to the requirements of their duty by providing unfair advantage to individuals, this constitutes the crime of abuse of office."

This crime generally does not carry as serious consequences as robbery or embezzlement, but it is still subject to criminal penalties because it damages public trust.

4. Serial Crimes (Turkish Penal Code Article 43)

If a public official repeatedly commits the crime of robbery or embezzlement against more than one person using the same method, the provisions of Article 43 of the Turkish Penal Code regarding continuous offenses shall apply, and the penalty shall be increased.

V. LIMITATION AND DISTINCTION OF CRIME TYPES

The two most commonly confused crimes when a public official acquires property through coercion and threats are:

• Robbery (Turkish Penal Code Articles 148-149)

• Embezzlement (Turkish Penal Code Article 250)

In this distinction, courts should make their assessments according to the following criteria:

1. Is the coercion/threat physical? → Looting

2. Under the guise of public duty? → Embezzlement

3. Did the victim consent voluntarily? → If there is consent, it is considered corruption.

4. Was the crime committed during a special assignment? → It could also be abuse of power.

VI. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN PRACTICE

A. Confusion of Crime Types

In actions carried out by police officers in particular, elements of embezzlement, looting, and abuse of power are intertwined. It may not always be clear to the courts which crime to prioritize.

B. Problems with Evidence

Because the perpetrator is a public official, it is difficult for the victim to file a complaint and provide concrete evidence. Therefore, call records, camera footage, and witness statements are of paramount importance.

C. The Authenticity of the Victim's Consent

Even if the victim appears to have consented, it must be assessed whether this consent was given under duress. Lawful consent must be based on genuine free will.

VII. CONCLUSION

A public official's involvement in robbery constitutes a crime not only against an individual's property but also against public authority and public security, from a criminal law perspective . Therefore, the legislator has severely punished such situations with different types of offenses, including aggravated robbery , embezzlement , and abuse of office

In practice, however, the differentiation of these crimes, the determination of the perpetrator's intent and capacity to act, and the victim's situation must be determined by evaluating all the details of the incident. Independent oversight and transparency are of great importance in the investigation of such acts.