25.04.2025 15:11
Mehmet Tok (46), who lives in Istanbul, put his car up for sale online for 105,000 lira four years ago. However, he fell victim to such a scam that he lost all of his wealth. Although he managed to ensure that the fraudsters were punished through his complaint, he could not recover from his victimization.
Mehmet Tok (46), who lives in Istanbul, put his car up for sale online for 105,000 Turkish Lira four years ago. A week later, a person named İlkin C. contacted Tok to buy the car. The parties agreed and met at the notary at 4:30 PM. According to the claim, the sale was completed within half an hour based on the receipt shown by İlkin C. However, when Tok did not see the money in his account, he filed a criminal complaint the next day. The investigation revealed that the receipt was fake. It was also understood that İlkin C. sold the car to someone else on the same day he bought it. In the four-year trial, İlkin C., who did not accept the charges, was sentenced to four years in prison and a fine of 100,000 TL, but the appellate court reduced the sentence to two years in prison and 10,000 TL, stating it was 'simple fraud.' Tok, who appealed the decision, said, "I saved money for 20 years and bought that car with all my savings. I put my car up for sale with an 'urgent for sale' ad because I needed it, but I became a victim. In the end, I was right after a four-year trial, but I still don't have my car."
Retired Mehmet Tok sold his 2006 model car to a person named İlkin C. for 105,000 TL on November 10, 2021, through an online sale. During the notary procedures, İlkin C. showed a fake receipt claiming he had made a bank transfer via EFT. Trusting the receipt, Tok transferred the car. However, realizing that the money did not come into his account, Tok filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office on November 11, 2021.
'NOT FOR SALE/TRANSFERABLE' NOTE WAS PLACED On the same day, İlkin C. sold the car to Özcan D., and Özcan D. sold it to Şakir S. When the car changed hands, a note stating 'not for sale/transferable' was placed on the vehicle by the prosecutor's office, which was owned by Şakir S. Şakir S. claimed he was acting in good faith in this trade and did not know the parties, and appealed the precautionary measure decision. Upon examination, it was decided that there was no ground for prosecution against Şakir S., and the seizure decision was lifted. A case was opened against the defendant İlkin C. for qualified fraud.
PENALTY NOT SUSPENDED, SUSPENSION OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT APPLIED In the initial ruling, a sentence of four years in prison and a fine of 100,000 TL was imposed. However, the prosecutor's office appealed the decision. The appellate court ruled that since a physical document (original receipt) from the bank was not used, this act was not qualified fraud but simple fraud. The case was sent back to the court. The court concluded that İlkin C. acted with the intent to defraud from the beginning. It was established that he obtained an unjust profit of 105,000 TL by deceiving the other party with a fake receipt. The defendant was sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of 10,000 TL for simple fraud. The sentence was not suspended, and the suspension of the announcement of the judgment was also not applied.
Mehmet Tok, who described the car sale process and what happened afterward, said, "In November 2021, I put my car up for sale online. A person called me. He said, 'I will come tomorrow around 4:30 PM. I will be off work, that's when I will come,' and we agreed. Three people came and looked at the car. I offered to show it to an expert. He said, 'No need to show it, I understand cars, my father will use it in the village, we won't sell it.' Then we went to the notary. At the notary, he showed me the receipt saying 'the money has been sent.' I called my bank and asked. The bank said there was no money deposited in my account and that I needed to call the bank of the sender. At that moment, the person I sold the car to had called his friend. He handed me the phone, saying he was calling his bank. He told the other party that the money had not been deposited in the account and that the notary was about to close, asking why it hadn't been deposited. At that time, I had sold my car for 105,000 TL. The other party said, '105,000 TL has been deducted from the account.' But since it was such a large amount, they said it must have fallen into the bank's pool. I believed the person I thought was a banker. I signed at the notary. I sent my car there. Then I started waiting. Meanwhile, we were messaging each other on the phone," he said.
'THE COURT DECIDED BUT MY CAR DID NOT RETURN' Tok said, "He is stalling me. It turns out he was going to sell the car. At that time, he sold it to two people back-to-back. I called again. He did not answer my calls. He then completely turned off his phone. First, I went to the police station, where I was told I needed to apply to the Public Prosecutor's Office. I applied to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Due to the second and third parties, a precautionary measure was placed on the car. The court proceeded. Then a decision was made. They released the car. But my car did not come back. I was right. What does it matter if I was right? They imposed a fine of 100,000 TL on the other party. I got nothing. They gave him four years in prison. These guys are defrauding everyone. Then it went to the Appellate Court. In the appeal, the 100,000 TL fine was reduced to 10,000 TL. The four-year prison sentence was also reduced to two years. My car is gone. I needed it, that's why I sold my car. I bought a car after saving money for 15-20 years," he said.
KALAY: THIS DECISION WAS MADE DEFINITELY Mehmet Tok's lawyer, Ece Rukiye Kalay, also stated, "We filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office due to the victimization our client experienced. As a result of the investigation conducted by the prosecutor's office, an indictment was prepared against the defendants for committing the crime of fraud. After the preparation of this indictment, the defendants were tried in the heavy penal court. After this trial, the local court sentenced the defendant to four years in prison and a fine of 100,000 TL for committing qualified fraud. This decision was appealed to the appellate court. Unfortunately, the decision made by the local court was reduced to a lower limit in the appellate court. The four-year prison sentence was reduced to two years, and the 100,000 TL fine was reduced to 10,000 TL. Unfortunately, this decision was made definitively. Therefore, in terms of fairness, our client's victimization has not been remedied. In this sense, as lawyers, we did everything we could. We closely followed the process for four years," she said.
'WE CONDUCTED THE PROCESS AS SENSITIVELY AS POSSIBLE' Kalay said, "We conducted the process as sensitively as possible. However, the victimization that occurred here has not been remedied. The defendant is currently in custody, in prison, and has made this a profession. These are already organized. The one on the phone, who is waiting and saying, 'the money has fallen into the other party's bank account,' is also involved in this. However, this was not the subject of this trial. The prosecutor's office issued a decision of non-prosecution against these individuals. Only one person's trial was decided. That person is already in prison. The appellate court overturned the local court's decision on the grounds that the local court ruled that 'the qualified form of the crime was committed.'
The appellate court stated, "No, 'the qualified form of the crime has not been committed here; the simple form of the crime has been committed here. The qualified elements of this crime have not occurred.'"
Kalay said, "They are already making appointments after 4 PM. Therefore, it is a time when the notary is about to close, and a time when the banks are about to close. Although our client received a response that there is no money that has fallen into our pool yet when they called their bank, the other party committed a crime by putting the phone on speaker. They provide information like 'It has been credited to the other party's account' at this time and date. Of course, later the client checks the receipt. Therefore, they believe it. This is human nature; we can all believe it. Please be extremely careful with such tools in the purchase and sale of vehicles and real estate. First, confirm with your own bank. Never sign that document at the notary without confirming with your own bank. The primary purpose of penalties should be to protect society from criminals, to tame the criminal, and to serve the rehabilitation of the criminal, but here the lower limit of the penalty has been reduced, deviating from this purpose."