Forgery of Documents in İzmir (TCK 204-207)

Forgery offences are regulated in the chapter of the Turkish Penal Code concerning offences against public trust. The protected legal interest is the confidence people place in documents, because most legal relationships are established and proven through documents. The provisions most frequently encountered in practice are TCK 204 on forgery of official documents, TCK 207 on forgery of private documents and TCK 210, which deems certain private documents to be official documents. This article examines the distinction between official and private documents, documents deemed official, the capacity to deceive required for the offence to arise, the role of expert and handwriting examinations, the concurrence debate where forgery accompanies fraud, and the criminal process in İzmir. Our aim is to explain this technically demanding offence together with its practical counterparts, and to show what suspects, defendants and complainants should pay attention to during the process. It should be noted that every file has its own circumstances and that the explanations below are for general information and do not replace an assessment of the specific case.

Forgery of Official Documents (TCK 204)

TCK 204 regulates forgery of official documents through three alternative acts: producing a false official document, altering a genuine official document in a way capable of deceiving others, and using a false official document. An official document is one issued by a public official within the scope of duty and in accordance with the prescribed formalities. Civil registry records, title deeds, court judgments, notarial instruments, correspondence of public bodies and vehicle registration certificates fall within this scope. Performing any one of the alternative acts suffices for the offence to arise; a person who did not personally produce the false document but knowingly uses it is liable under the same article. The second paragraph provides an aggravated form carrying a heavier penalty where the offence is committed by a public official through abuse of the authority deriving from that office. The third paragraph provides for the penalty to be increased by one half where the document is one that, by law, is deemed valid until its falsity is established; notarial instruments and certain official records are prominent examples. The mental element of the offence is intent, so a person who uses a document without knowing it is false lacks intent and incurs no liability. The document forming the subject matter of the offence must be in writing, must have an issuer and must be capable of producing a legal effect; if any of these criteria is absent, there is no document in the criminal law sense. Forgery may consist of producing a document entirely from scratch, or of adding to, erasing, scraping or altering figures on a genuine document. In forgery of official documents the offence is complete upon production of the document; no actual damage need arise, because the interest protected is public trust rather than any specific property.

Forgery of Private Documents (TCK 207) and the Difference

TCK 207 regulates forgery of private documents. A private document is a written instrument drawn up between persons not acting as public officials and capable of producing a legal effect. Contracts, acknowledgements of debt other than negotiable instruments, invoices, receipts, business correspondence and documents issued by private institutions fall within this scope. The article sets out two alternative acts: producing a false private document or altering a genuine private document; however, unlike forgery of official documents, completion of the offence requires the perpetrator to use the document. Merely producing a false private document is not sufficient for the offence to arise unless it is used. The second paragraph provides that a person who uses a private document knowing it to be false is also punished. The second fundamental difference from official documents lies in the severity of the penalty: the sentencing range for forgery of private documents is markedly lower than that for official documents. Correctly characterising the document in a given case therefore has decisive consequences for both the applicable article and the competent court. A frequently debated issue in practice concerns documents a person draws up in their own name but with untrue content; as a rule, untruthfulness in a document containing only the declaration of its own issuer does not by itself constitute forgery. By contrast, signing in the name of another person, completing a signed blank sheet contrary to the agreement, or subsequently altering figures in a contract are typical forms of forgery of private documents. Misuse of a signed blank instrument is assessed separately according to the nature of the document and the way the signature was obtained, and is governed by its own statutory provision.

Documents Deemed Official (TCK 210)

TCK 210 deems certain private documents to be official documents because of their nature and economic function. Under its first paragraph, negotiable instruments payable to order or to bearer (cheques, promissory notes, bills of exchange), documents representing goods, share certificates, bonds and wills are punished under the provisions on forgery of official documents even though they are private documents. The purpose of this provision is to afford stronger protection to instruments that must circulate with confidence in commercial life. The most common examples in practice are issuing a promissory note bearing a forged signature, or subsequently altering the amount or issue date on a cheque. For an instrument to fall within this scope it must qualify as a negotiable instrument, that is, it must contain the mandatory formal elements required by the Turkish Commercial Code; an instrument lacking those elements is not a negotiable instrument, so the provisions on forgery of private documents may come into play if their conditions are met. The second paragraph contains a separate provision for physicians, dentists, pharmacists, midwives, nurses and other health professionals who issue documents contrary to the truth. Treating a document as an official document affects not only the severity of the penalty but also the moment of completion: because of the reference to TCK 204, producing a forged instrument is sufficient for the offence to arise and its use is not additionally required. For promissory notes subjected to enforcement proceedings in particular, the mandatory elements of the instrument and its issue and maturity dates must therefore be examined carefully. Where the original instrument is held in the enforcement file, obtaining that original often becomes indispensable for the criminal investigation.

Capacity to Deceive and Expert Examination

For forgery offences to arise, the document must possess capacity to deceive. Doctrine and settled case law treat this as a mandatory element of the offence. Capacity to deceive means that the document must objectively appear capable of misleading people at first sight, without the need for careful examination. Crude and careless imitations whose falsity anyone could readily detect lack this element, so no offence arises. Capacity to deceive is assessed by the judge according to the circumstances of the case; in practice it matters that the court examines the document itself and records that examination in the minutes. The assessment considers the paper, the printed elements, stamp and seal impressions, and the appearance of the writing and signature together. Where it is disputed to whom a signature or handwriting belongs, a handwriting expert examination is ordered. In that examination, comparison samples of writing and signatures taken from the suspect are compared with the writing on the document. An expert report is not by itself binding evidence; it is freely assessed together with the other evidence, and a supplementary report or a fresh expert examination may be requested where necessary. The proper collection of comparison samples directly affects the outcome; samples are expected to be sufficient in number, taken at different times and written freely. Technical methods such as ink analysis, determining the sequence of intersecting lines, or comparing stamp and seal impressions may also be employed. If it is concluded that the document lacks capacity to deceive, the conduct may, where its conditions are met, be assessed under another offence such as fraud; this possibility should not be overlooked when structuring the defence.

Combination With Fraud and Successive Offence

A forged document is most often used not for its own sake but to obtain some other advantage. The situation most frequently encountered in practice is the use of a forged document as the deceptive conduct element of fraud. According to settled case law, forgery and fraud protect different legal interests: forgery protects public trust, while fraud protects property. The two offences therefore do not absorb one another, and under the rules of genuine concurrence the perpetrator may be held separately liable for both. This outcome emerges more clearly where the document is an official document or is deemed to be one. For the scope and details of aggravated fraud, see our article on aggravated fraud in İzmir (TCK 158). Where several forged documents are produced against the same victim at different times in execution of a single decision to commit the offence, the successive offence provisions of TCK 43 come into play. In that case a single penalty is imposed on the perpetrator, but it is increased by a certain proportion. By contrast, acts directed at different victims with no legal connection between them constitute separate offences rather than a successive offence. Drawing these distinctions correctly produces significant differences in the final sentence. Moreover, where a forged document is both produced and used, the alternative acts constitute a single offence, so the perpetrator is liable for one offence rather than two separate counts of forgery. By contrast, in files involving several forged documents, it is examined whether those documents rest on separate legal relationships. These assessments directly shape the indictment, the provisions to be applied and the structure of the defence.

Process and Competent Court in İzmir

In İzmir, forgery files are heard at İzmir Courthouse (Bayraklı). The competent court varies according to the nature of the document concerned: cases involving forgery of official documents and of documents deemed official under TCK 210 fall within the jurisdiction of the assize court because of the upper limit of the prescribed penalty, while cases of forgery of private documents are heard by the criminal court of first instance. The investigation is conducted by the chief public prosecutor, and obtaining the original of the document is critical to the course of the file. Since examinations based on a photocopy or a scanned image often yield no conclusive result, the original is requested from the relevant institution, notary, bank or enforcement file. Stating clearly at the outset of the investigation where the document is held and in which transaction it was used therefore speeds up the process. For a suspect or defendant, building the defence at an early stage, submitting the request for a signature and handwriting examination in good time and explaining the legal relationship from which the document arose are all important. For a complainant, stating in which transaction the allegedly forged document was used and attaching any bank, notarial and enforcement records to the petition facilitates the examination. If a civil case based on the same document is pending, it should also be borne in mind that the two files may affect one another and that the question of a preliminary issue may arise. For the steps to follow during detention and questioning, see our article on detention, statements and prosecution processes in İzmir. To build a defence supported by evidence throughout the proceedings, our İzmir criminal lawyer services are available.

Frequently Asked Questions

For legal support on forgery allegations, forged instruments and signature examination processes, contact Yücesoy Law Office via our contact page.