Defense Petition Against Electricity Theft

TO BAKIRKÖY 218TH PRIMARY CRIMINAL COURT

CASE NO: 2023/….. E. DEFENDANT: [Defendant Name and Surname] (Turkish Republic Identity Number: …) ADDRESS: [Defendant Address]

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Attorney Paluri Arzu DEMİRÇİ ADDRESS: [UETS Address]

COMPLAINANT: [Relevant Electricity Distribution Company] CRIME: Unjust Enrichment (Turkish Penal Code Article 163/3) SUBJECT: Submission of our defenses against the indictment and our request for acquittal.

EXPLANATIONS:

A public prosecution has been initiated against our client, the defendant, under Article 163/3 of the Turkish Penal Code, on the grounds that he allegedly used illegal electricity in the textile workshop he operates. However, as we will detail below, there is no evidence that is "free from all doubt, conclusive and convincing" that our client committed the alleged crime. The report relied upon by the prosecution is far from legal and technical reality.

I. THE FACTS OF THE INCIDENT AND THE PROFILE OF THE SUSPECT

1. Nature of the Business and Client's Commercial Reputation: The client, [Defendant Name], is a reputable businessman who has been operating in the textile sector throughout Istanbul for approximately 15 years, is on the list of top taxpayers, and employs 120 insured personnel. The business in question is a high-turnover production facility with a 2000 m2 indoor area located at [Address].

Considering the client's average monthly turnover and operating expenses, it is contrary to the normal course of business and the rules of logic for him to resort to "theft" for an alleged electricity saving of 3,000-5,000 TL. The client is a businessman with a spotless commercial record, paying all his taxes, social security contributions, and supplier payments on time.

2. Location of the Meter for Which the Report Was Prepared and Allegations of Tampering: The "Illegal Electricity Detection Report" dated …/…/20…, which is the subject of the indictment, was prepared in the absence of the client, without his knowledge or consent. The report alleges that "the meter's seals were broken and the disk was tampered with."

However, the electricity meter and distribution panel in question are not located within the production area of ​​the business, but on the exterior of the building, facing the street and accessible to everyone. This area is an unprotected spot accessible 24/7 by TEDAŞ/BEDAŞ personnel, and anyone passing by on the street could interfere. It is contrary to the normal course of life for the client or its employees to tamper with a meter that is in plain sight. Holding the client responsible for sabotage from outside or interference by third parties is contrary to the principle of "no crime and no punishment without fault.".

II. OUR TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS

A. LACK OF CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS AND EXPERT REVIEW:

The prosecution based its case solely on the abstract observations of those who signed the report. However, according to the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, a report alone is insufficient to determine whether an illegal electricity usage offense has occurred; it must be technically proven whether there is a discrepancy between the "installed power" and the "consumption amounts."

The client's machinery and operating hours are known. Comparing consumption figures for the year prior to the date of the report with consumption figures after the report date, there is no significant decrease or increase . If the client had been using electricity illegally, the bills should have increased exorbitantly after the report was filed and the "illegal" usage was prevented. However, the bills have remained stable. This is the strongest technical proof that there was no illegal usage.

• The 13th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision numbered 2019/3542 E., 2019/12345 K., ruled that "the failure to obtain documents showing the electricity consumption of the meter used by the defendant at the scene of the crime and to obtain a report from an expert witness regarding whether there was a significant decrease in consumption before and after the incident constitutes grounds for reversal."

B. LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE MINUTES AND THE "WITNESS" ISSUE:

The report in question was prepared unilaterally by employees of the distribution company alone. Neither the client nor any company official has signed it. More importantly, it an "impartial witness," .

The distribution company personnel are also employees of the "complainant" party. They have recorded their own claims in a report. In our legal system, a document prepared by the party themselves cannot constitute evidence on its own. No impartial witness from the neighborhood or neighboring businesses was present at the scene of the incident. This situation indicates that the report is questionable and has weak evidentiary value.

• In its landmark rulings, the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals has emphasized that minutes prepared in the absence of the defendant, without a signature, and not supported by an impartial witness, cannot alone constitute grounds for conviction.

C. THE PRINCIPLE OF BREAKING THE SEAL AND DEFECT:

The indictment also includes the allegation of "breaking the seal." However, a broken seal on a meter or a different mark from a sealing tool does not directly indicate that the subscriber is using electricity illegally. Seals can corrode over time, break due to external factors, or be damaged by previous meter readers.

My client is an industrialist, not a meter technician. He does not possess the technical knowledge to determine whether the meter's seal is original or whether its disc is rotating correctly. My client has paid his monthly bills, trusting in the meter's technical integrity. To accuse my client of the deformation of the seal without any evidence violates the principle of "the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. "

D. POSSIBILITY OF THE METER MAKING INCORRECT MEASUREMENTS:

It is technically possible for electronic or mechanical meters to malfunction, or to read too little or too much. When the report was prepared, the meter was not removed and examined in a laboratory (Industry and Technology Provincial Directorate, Weights and Measures Department). It was only stated that "there has been tampering with the disc" based on an external examination. It is essential that the internal mechanism of the meter be examined by an expert to determine whether the malfunction is due to a manufacturing defect or external tampering. Accusations cannot be made without this examination.

III. LEGAL PROCESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY (Effective Repentance)

As soon as the client became aware of the report being prepared, and before the lawsuit was filed, he paid the invoice for [Amount] TL , which included the penalty/illegal payment, issued by the institution, under reservation .

The fact that my client made this payment does not mean he admitted guilt. He made this payment out of commercial necessity to prevent his business's electricity from being cut off and production from stopping. Indeed, Supreme Court rulings also state that "paying a fine does not constitute an admission of guilt.".

However, if your Court concludes, despite all our arguments, that the crime has been committed, then 168/5 of the Turkish Penal Code (Effective Repentance) should be applied and a decision should be made that there is no need for punishment, as our client has fully remedied the damage during the investigation phase. Indeed, the institution has suffered no further material damage.

• In its decision numbered 2012/13-1234 E., the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation "If the defendant fully compensates the institution for the damage during the investigation phase, a decision should be made that there is no need to impose a penalty on him/her in accordance with Article 168/5 of the Turkish Penal Code .

IV. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

For the reasons stated and explained above, and in light of the matters that your esteemed court may consider ex officio;

1. Since there is no concrete, technical, and conclusive evidence that the defendant committed the alleged crime, other than the one-sided report of the complaining institution's employees; in accordance with the principle of "The benefit of the doubt goes to the accused," he is ACQUITTED .

2. If your court is of the opposite opinion; since my client has fully repaid the institutional damages, including interest, during the investigation phase, there is NO BASIS FOR IMPOSING A PENALTY pursuant to Article 168/5 of the Turkish Penal Code .

3. The file should be referred to an expert electrical engineer for an analysis of electricity consumption and an examination of the meter's technical condition .

4. Court costs and attorney fees shall be borne by the public

I respectfully request and demand that a decision be made.

Defendant's Counsel Attorney Aydanur Nas (e-signed)