Criminal Law

The Offence of Selling, Purchasing, or Accepting Property Obtained Through Crime

Av. Burak Kuru
6 min read
📰

The offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting property obtained through crime is a criminal offence aimed at preventing the unlawful transfer and circulation of property derived from criminal activity. This article examines, within the scope of Article 165 of the Turkish Penal Code, the elements of the offence, the applicable sanctions, the requirement of intent, the aggravated forms of the offence, and the relevant case law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay).

The Offence of Selling, Purchasing, or Accepting Property Obtained Through Crime (Article 165 of the Turkish Penal Code)

The offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting property obtained through crime is regulated under Article 165 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC). This offence aims to prevent the unlawful circulation of property obtained through criminal activity. Through this regulation, the legislator seeks to prevent assets derived from criminal offences from entering legitimate commercial life and to eliminate the negative impact of criminal proceeds on social order.

Legal Basis of the Offence under Article 165 TPC

For this offence to arise, there must first be property obtained as a result of a prior criminal offence. In other words, the offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting property obtained through crime does not arise from an isolated act involving property; rather, it stems from placing into circulation property that has been obtained through a previously committed crime.

Elements of the Offence

1. Existence of Property Obtained Through a Prior Crime

For the offence to occur, there must be property obtained as a result of another criminal offence. The fact that the property was derived from a crime must be clearly established in the specific case.

For example, the property may have been obtained through offences such as:

  • theft,
  • fraud,
  • abuse of trust,
  • robbery.

2. Actus Reus: Selling, Purchasing, or Accepting

The material element of the offence is constituted by one of the following acts committed by the perpetrator with respect to the criminal property:

  • selling the property,
  • purchasing the property,
  • accepting the property.

In practice, the concept of acceptance is interpreted broadly. It includes not only the transfer of ownership but also receiving the property for use or benefit.

3. Intent (Mens Rea)

The offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting criminal property may only be committed intentionally; it cannot be committed through negligence.

The perpetrator must act:

  • knowing that the property was obtained through a crime, or
  • in circumstances where the person could reasonably have known this without leaving any doubt.

Therefore, in terms of the mental element, both direct intent and possible intent (dolus eventualis) may arise.

If the perpetrator did not know that the property was obtained through crime and could not reasonably have known this based on the circumstances of the case, the intent element of the offence is not satisfied.

Victim of the Offence

The victim of this offence is public order.

This is because the circulation of criminal property may:

  • preserve unlawful gains obtained through crime,
  • facilitate the legitimization of criminal proceeds,
  • create new forms of victimization.

Accordingly, the legislator seeks to protect not only the original owner of the property but also social order and legal security.

Penalty for the Offence

Under the Turkish Penal Code, the basic sanction for this offence is:

imprisonment from six months to three years and a judicial fine.

In determining the basic penalty, the court considers factors such as the nature of the property, the degree of intent, and the circumstances of the offence.

Aggravating Circumstances

Certain circumstances may lead to an increase in the penalty.

Commission as a Profession or Repeatedly

If the offence is committed habitually or as a profession, or if it is committed multiple times, it may be regarded as an aggravated form.

Commission within the Framework of a Criminal Organization

If the act is committed within the framework of an organized criminal activity, additional sanctions may arise under Article 220 of the Turkish Penal Code.

Quantity, Importance, and Value of the Property

In practice, courts also consider:

  • the quantity of the property,
  • its economic value,
  • its importance, and
  • the extent of the damage caused

when determining the appropriate penalty.

Recidivism

If the offender is a repeat offender, the provisions on recidivism under Article 58 of the Turkish Penal Code may apply as a general aggravating circumstance.

Circumstances Reducing Criminal Liability

In some cases, the penalty may be mitigated or the offence may not arise at all.

Effective Remorse

If the offender contributes to the recovery of the property or to the compensation of the victim’s loss, the court may evaluate this circumstance in favor of the offender.

Low Value of the Property

If the value of the property is relatively low, the court may determine the basic penalty close to the statutory minimum.

Lack of Knowledge

If it is proven that the perpetrator did not know and could not reasonably have known that the property was obtained through a crime, the elements of the offence are not fulfilled and an acquittal must be ordered.

Requirement of Non-Participation in the Predicate Offence

For the offence under Article 165 TPC to occur, the perpetrator must not have participated in the predicate offence through which the property was obtained.

For example, if the person participated in the underlying offence such as:

  • theft,
  • fraud, or
  • robbery,

then the act will be evaluated within the scope of participation in that primary offence, rather than under Article 165.

In the decision of the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2019/13120 E., 2019/16937 K.), it was held that the defendant’s act constituted the offence of purchasing or accepting property obtained through crime under Article 165, rather than participation in theft.

Criteria Considered in Determining the Legal Characterization of the Offence

In judicial practice, several concrete factors are evaluated together with other evidence.

Place Where the Property Was Purchased

Purchasing property in an unusual environment that is inconsistent with ordinary commercial practice may be considered an indicator of criminal activity.

For instance, purchasing property outside normal venues such as shops, authorized dealers, or second-hand marketplaces may be relevant in evaluating intent.

Purchasing Property Far Below Market Value

In the case law of the Court of Cassation, purchasing an item at a price significantly below its market value is regarded as an important indicator.

If the property is purchased at a price far below the normal market value, this may be considered evidence that the buyer knew or should have known that the property was stolen or obtained through crime.

However, if the item is purchased at a price close to its second-hand market value, the existence of intent must be proven separately in each case.

In the decision numbered 2014/11495 of the 2nd Criminal Chamber, it was stated that convicting the defendant under Article 165 was unlawful where there was no sufficient evidence that the defendant knew the phone purchased at a price close to its second-hand market value was criminal property.

Purchasing Property at Unusual Times

In practice, purchasing property at night, when it would normally be purchased during the daytime according to ordinary practice, may also be considered contrary to the normal course of events.

Additionally, factors such as:

  • purchasing goods allegedly for an urgent need that does not actually exist,
  • stockpiling unnecessary goods,
  • attempting to conceal the property

may also be taken into account together with other evidence in determining intent.

Importance of the Intent Element

The most critical element under Article 165 TPC is intent.

For the offence to occur, the perpetrator must knowingly and willingly sell, purchase, or accept property obtained through a crime, or at least be in a position where such knowledge would be unavoidable.

If the person did not possess such knowledge and could not reasonably have known under the circumstances, the mental element of the offence is not satisfied and a conviction cannot be rendered.

Assessment in Light of the Case Law of the Court of Cassation

In its jurisprudence, the Court of Cassation particularly focuses on the following issues:

  • whether the property was actually obtained through a crime,
  • whether the defendant participated in the predicate offence,
  • whether the circumstances of the purchase were ordinary,
  • whether the price was reasonable compared to the market value,
  • whether the defendant knew or should have known that the property was criminal property.

Therefore, each case must be evaluated not only based on the origin of the property but also by examining the circumstances of the transaction, the price, the place and time of purchase, and the conduct of the parties involved.

Conclusion

The offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting property obtained through crime is an important criminal provision designed to prevent the unlawful introduction of criminal property into economic and social circulation.

For the offence to occur, the property must have been obtained through another crime, the perpetrator must not have participated in the predicate offence, and—most importantly—the perpetrator must have acted knowing or being able to know beyond reasonable doubt that the property was derived from criminal activity.

For this reason, disputes arising under Article 165 TPC require a comprehensive evaluation of all evidence, including the nature of the property, the sale price, the manner of acquisition, and the defendant’s knowledge and intent.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting property obtained through crime?

It is the offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting property obtained through another crime and is regulated under Article 165 of the Turkish Penal Code.

What is the penalty under Article 165 TPC?

The basic penalty is imprisonment from six months to three years and a judicial fine.

Can this offence be committed through negligence?

No. The offence may only be committed intentionally.

Must the perpetrator know that the property was obtained through crime?

Yes. The perpetrator must know or be in a position where they could clearly recognize that the property was obtained through a criminal offence.

Is a person who participated in the predicate offence liable under Article 165?

No. If the person participated in the predicate offence, they will be held liable for that offence as a participant, not under Article 165.

Legal Assistance in Cases under Article 165 TPC

Investigations and trials concerning the offence of selling, purchasing, or accepting property obtained through crime require technical legal assessment, particularly in determining the element of intent, establishing the link with the predicate offence, correctly identifying the legal characterization of the act, and applying the relevant case law of the Court of Cassation.

For this reason, conducting the legal process with the assistance of a lawyer specialized in criminal law is important for the effective exercise of the right of defence and the prevention of potential loss of rights.

Related Articles

Criminal Law

Offense of Fraud

The offense of fraud is regulated under Articles 157 and 158 of the Turkish Penal Code and consists of obtaining an unjust benefit by deceiving the victim through fraudulent acts. While the basic form of the offense is punishable by imprisonment from one to five years, the penalty is aggravated where the offense is committed through information systems or to the detriment of public institutions and organizations. This article addresses the general legal definitions of the offense, as well as certain aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in light of the precedents of the Court of Cassation.

Criminal Law

The Offence of Insult

The offence of insult is regulated under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code and aims to protect an individual’s honour, dignity, and reputation. The offence may be constituted where a person attributes to another a specific act capable of undermining that person’s honour and esteem, or where a person attacks another’s reputation through abusive language. This article examines in detail the constitutive elements of the offence, the applicable sanction, the statutory time limit for filing a complaint, and the relevant case law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay).