Page 1

Oğuzhan Emre PARLAK

sworıı Translator - Yeminli Tercüman

Cacj,

No.1

Beyoğlu V D

6760 7610

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

gsKİŞnHİn

CRIMINAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NO 6

l hereby ceıtify that l have translaled

lhe abOve-menlioned dOc.umenl

f rom l[*r.İr,r',. into .Ü,^11'.+l. and

the tıanslalıon is lrue anJ acculate lo lhdtest of my abili§

RECORD OF THE HEARING

CASE No

HEARING DATE

HEARING NO

:202|ll482

:0lll3l2022

:1§T

JUDGE

: CEREN HEKiM DEMİRCi 1l9I74

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : MEİIMET AKİF AKBAŞ 189493

CLERI(

: EMİNE cÜı,H.{N ÖzıvrEN fl6356

On the date and time of the hearing, the first hearing began in the hearing hall of

Eskisehir Criminal Court of First Instance. The accused, DAVOOD KESHAVARZ, his defense

counsel, Att. Ayberk Güntay Öztiirk, and Aff. Öykü Ergtin on behalf of Att. Serdar Durdağı,

who is the attomey of the complainant, were present. No one else was present. The public

hearing began.

The indictment and the decision on the acceptance of the indictment were read.

It was understood that the defense counsel had submitted his power of attorney. This

was read and put into the file.

It was seen that the invitation had been received by the accused.

There is a response to the letter for the determination of the economic arıd social

situation of the accused. This was read and put into the file.

It was understood that the defense counsel had subrnitted a document showing that the

accused is a taxpayer in the U.S.A. This was read and put into the file.

It was understood that the attomey of the complainant had submitted its certificate of

authorization. This was read and put into the file.

It was ırnderstood that the attorney of the complainant had submitted his evidence. This

was read and put into the file.

It was seen that the defense counsel had submitted the documents mentioned in the

defense and written defense. These were read and put into the file.

Since it was understood that the accused could not speak Turkish, an interpreter-expert

was invited.

It was understood that the interpreter-expert Tahereh Abbaszadeh Khiaban was present.

Her identity was checked.

THE INTERPRETER-EXPERT TAIIEREH ABBASZADEH KIIIABAN,

daughter of Abbas and Sekine, born in Tabriz on05l28ll981, registered in Iran, still resides at

İstiklal Mah. Şair Fuzuli Cad. No:66l3 Odunpazarı/Eskişehir. Her phone number is 0555 104

24 |5. TR ID No: 99147054694.

No re-oath was taken under Article 6415 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271

because since she has been appointed ex-officio from the Ankara Regional Expeıt List, she is

on the expert list, and the oath had been taken before.

The expert was told about his work and asked to fulfill the tasks in the hearing.

The expert said,

o'I

understand the task and I will do it."

The accused was brought to the hearing hall and reminded that he was obliged to answer

questi0ns about his ıdentıty correctly by means or IhO inıerprelsr. İİis identiıy r,vas çlrçgkçd,

THE ACCUSED: DAVOOD KESHAVARZ, TR ID Number: 99710341824, son of

EzzaiAllah and Farangis, born in Borujen on 11118/1985, registered in Iran, sti1l resides at

You can actess this documont oı UYAP lıformation §ystem at http://vatanda§,uyaP,gov,tr with 0uGıd6w - GDpSvoh - eoBJlQD _ 36sBE:,

Il5

Oğuzhan Emre PARLAK

sworn Translator - yeminli Tercüman

No:1

Beyoğlu V.D

5760 761 0

Bahçelievler Mah. Balkan Cad, No:18 İç Kapı No:1 Tepebaşı/Eskişehir. He declares that he is

married; he has one child; he is literate in his own language; he is a graphic designer; he has a

master's degree; his monthly income is TRY 3,000.00; he has no registered property; he has no

criminal record. He is an lranian national. His phone no is 0538 616 52 62.

The acts and evidence that are the basis of the accusation corıtained in the indictment

and the legal qualification of the accusation were explained under Article l9|l3-b of the

Criminal Procedure LawNo. 527|.

By means of the irıterpreter-expert, the acçused was informed that he had the right to

choose a defense counsel and might benefit from his legal assistance; the defense counsel might

be present during his declaration or interrogation; if he could not hire a defense counsel and

wanted to benefit from legal assistance, a defense counsel might be appointed for him by the

bar association (in case of conviction, the fee of the defense counsel would be considered as a

litigation cost); he had the right to silence; he could ask for the collection of concrete evidence

to be acquitted from the suspicion, he was given an opporfunity to eliminate the existing

suspicions against him and to submit the evidence in favor of him, and the information about

his personal and economic situation was received under Article 147 of the Criminal Proçedure

LawNo. 527l.

Under Article 10612 ofthe Criminal Procedure LawNo. 527|,he was reminded to report

the address change to the file by a new address declaration or a registered letter with return

receipt if the address mentioned above by him was changed until the end of the criminal

proceeding, and he was reminded that all the notices would be sent to the above-mentioned

address if he did not comply with this warning. Sinçe it was not required, technicai facilities

were not used.

In the declaration of the accused made by means of the interpreter-expert, he said "I

understood the accusations against me and my legal rights. I have no request for time for my

defense and defense counsel. I will make my defense with my defense counsel. I want to be

exempted from hearings." It was asked of him through the interpreter-expert:

IN THE DEf,,ENSE OF THE ACCUSED TAKEN BY MEAN§ OF THE

INTERPRETER-EXPERT, he saidool do not know Turkish. I will do my defense with the

translator. I am a graphic designer, and I design. I am a freeiancer. I met the complaint on the

internet because of my work. I created designs through the application call,ed SLACK. The

complainant was able to enter this application with his own password, and both of us could see

the designs that I created through this system. Thsre is no system in which the projects of ttıe

complainant are stored. I have been resident in Turkey for 6 years. it is the website named

GITHUB that is mentioned in the indictment" This is an application used in the U.S.A. I am

registered with this program. Coders are registered there, their codes are also visible to all other

users. The correspondence stated in the indictment is not mine. I did not write these messages

to the complainant. I do not accept the acçusation." The declarations of the accused in the

previous stages were read. It was asked by means of the interpreter-expert: "It is true. I repeat

them exactly. If the cornplainant withdraws the complainant, I will accept it." As it is deemed

necessary to ask a question by means of the interpreter, the accused answered "The complainant

added me to the site named GITHUB. He was the administrator there, and I was able to act as

much as the complainant allowed. I was able to act under the control and supervision of the

complainant.".

The civil registry and criminal record were read to the accused. It was asked by means

of the interpreter-expert, he answered "Yes, these are mine".

Offİcial documents, documents, reports, statements, declarations, records, and other

information and documents in the file were read to the accused. It was asked by means of thE

İnteıpreter,expert, hç answerçd "I do not accept the matters whiçh are against me",

L

You çan access this docummt on IJYAP Infmation System at http://vatada,uyap,gov,tr with 0uO+d5ş, - GDpSvOh , eOBJIQD , 36sf3t=,

215

Oğuzhan Emre PARLAK

**o,n r,e$xl:ffi mınli Tercüman

rorr(!m}@3!frlgı iao

-8J;JffiB:trt3,,JiilH?b,,

It was asked of the accused by means of the interpreter-expert whether he requested that

the provisioırs of the deferment of the announcement of the verdict be applied under Article

|0612 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 527l if ihe crime was proved and again whether he

requested that the punishment be substituted for publicly beneficial work under Article 50/1-f

of the Tıırkish Penai Code No. 5237 ıf the crime was proved. He said "Yes, I agree, I accept the

implementation of the provisions of defemıent of the ıınnouncement of the verdict and the

punishment to be substituted for publicly beneficial work if üe Court deems appropriate."

It was asked of the attomey of the complainant: She answered

*'We

do not accept the

defense of the accused. The complainant and accused corresponded on Skype. We have

submitted these coıTespondences to the file. The receipts about the relation between the accused

and complainant are in the case. The accused may flee abroad. We request the Court to impose

an internaüonal travel ban on the accused. We complain about üe accused. We request to

participate in the case."

It was asked of the public prosecutor: He said "I have nothing to add about the received

and read documents and declarations made by the parties. I consider that the Court decides to

accept üe request for the participation of the attorney of the complainant and refuse the other

request, eonsidering that the request of the attomey of the partieipant for the imposition of a

judicial control measure on the accused is unnecessary given the situation of the criminal

proceeding and the request for the investigation of the IP addıess and S§pe address of the

defense counsel is not unreasonable given the evideııce in the file."

It was asked of the accused by means of the interpreter-expert: He answered *The Court

has üe authority to accept the request to participate. My e-mail address on Slack is

" davood. ke shav aru@outlook. com".

It was asked of the defense counsel. He answered "We totally agree with the accused's

defense. We do not accept the statements of the complainant's attorney. The Court has the

authority to accept the request to participate. Firstly, we request the court to exempt our client

from hearings. My client did not write the messages on S§pe in the file. The authenticity of

these messages has not been approved. For this reason, we request the Court to deliver the case

to IT experts in order to make research about which IP addresses, Skype ID, internet networks

were used for üese messages. Again, we request detailed research about what actions were

sarried out in the program ııagıed GITHUB. When this reseaıch is done, it witl be revealed that

my client is innocent. The reason for complaining about my client based on false documents is

an agreement of S50,000 between my client and the complainant. This price has not been paid

by the complainant. My client doubts the identity of the complainant. The business relationship

was terminated by our client because of the loss of confidence. The complainantproduced fake

correspondences and complained about our client based on these fake correspondences. we

request the collection of evidençe stated by us. Considering the receipts submitted by the

complainant's attorney and us, it has been proved that a higher price was paid to my clients.

This is proof that my client did not commit the alleged crime. We request that our client be

acquiued of the alleged crime."

IT HAS BEEN DECREED AND DECLARBD TO:

1-) Refuse the request for the implementation of the judicial control measure on the

accused considering the fact that the defense was made and the process of the file;

2-) Refuse the request of the defense counsel for delivering the case to an IT expert

considering the evidence in the file;

3) Determine the fee as TRY 300.00 considering the effort and work ofthe interpretet-

expert and write a decision to expend; and

4-) Accept the complainant as a participant in this public case based on the probability

that thç person is damaged by the çrimç under Artiçle 237 arıd the following articles of the

You caı access this documeıt oı UYAP Iıfoımation Systeın 5t http://vatanda§,uyap,gov,t wif 0uüt"d6w , GDpsvoh , €oBJlQD - 36sf3E=,

3l5

Oğuıhan Emre PARLAK

'*o,n

r,e§gtffi

1,

n,ı;rerctıman

*"I",*9ffi*i,tr.

Beyoğlu V.D, +0 6760 761o

Turkish Penal Code No. 5271 arıd accept Att. Serdar Durdağı as the attorney of the participant

in the case and hearings in accordance with the power of attomey. The public hearing continued.

The public pro§ecutorwas asked if he requested the extension of inquiry.If not, he

wı§ requested to submit his consideration. He said "We do not request the extension of

inquiry. When the event and the entire file aıe evaluated together, it is understood that the

accused committed the crime of successive blackmail against the participant. We consider and

request on behalf of the public that the accused be punished under the provisions of Article

l07l1,43ll, arıd 53 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, which complies with his trime."

The aüorney of üe participant was asked if she requested the extension of inquiry. If

not, she was requested to make her last declarations. She said'oWe repeat our previous written

and oral declarations and demand that the defendant be punished. We still complain about him.

The defense counsel was asked if he requested the extension of inquiry. If not, he was

requested to make his last declarations. He said

o'We

repeat our previous written and oral

defenses. We request that the file be delivered to the IT specialist, as we have just stated the

details. However, the Court did not accept it. Again, we have a hard disk in which our client

stored all the related data. We can submit this to the Court. The hard disk has a passcode. If it

is deemed ne€essary, we Gan submit the password with a petition We do not aeeept the

consideration. We request that our client be acquitted."

The hard disk named wd my passport ultra submitted by the defense counsel was

received by hand and put into t}ıe file.

The accused was asked if he requested the extension of inquiry. If not, he was requested

to make his last declarations. He said "I do not accept the evidence and documents submitted

by the complainant. I did not write these messages. Also, there is no evidence about that. I

repeat my previous defenses exactly. I do not accept the consideration. I want to be acquitted."

The accused was asked if he had any last words. He said "The complainant does not live

in Turkey. If I get acquitted in this case, how can I complain about him?"

The case was examined.

It was understood that there was nothing else to be investigated. The public hearing

ended.

V§RDICT: Considering the above_mentioned justiiications, it is decreed on behalf

of tlre Turkistı natiorı, in the presence of the accused, deferşe counsel, participant's attorney,

and public prosecutor and the absence of the participant, in accordance with the consideration

of üe public prosecutor:

(1) To SENTENCE TI{E ACCUSED To 1 YEAR,S IMPRISONMENT AND

IMPOSE A PUNITIVE FINE OF 5 DAYS ON HIM under Articles 61 and l07l1 ofthe Turkish

Penal Code no. 5237 considering the intensity ofthe accused's intention and how the crime was

commitied because it is understood that the accused, I)avood Keshavatz, committed the crime

of successive blackmail against üe participant Devakumarın Jaşwant Kumar,

(2) To increase the punishmentby |l4 under Article 5214 of the Turkish Penal Code no.

5237 , SENTENCE THE ACCUSED To l YEAR AND 3 MONTHS, IMPRISONMENT AND

IMPOSE A PUMTIVE FINE OF 6 DAYS ON HIM considering that the accused committed

the crime in a successive way,

(3) To decrease the punishment by l/6 under Article 62l|-2 of the Turkish Penal Code

ıo. 5237, SENTENCE THE ACCUSED TO 1 YEAR AI\[D 15 DAYS' IMPRISOI{MENT

AltD IMPOSE A PUNITIVE FINE OF'5 DAYS ON HIM considering the possible negative

effects of the sentencing on the future of the accused,

(4) TO DETERMINE the pıınitive frne as TRY 20.00 for one day and as TRY 100.00

for 5 days consideling the economic and social stafus of the accused under Article 5211-2-3 of

the Twkish Penal Codç no. 5237,

You çan aççeşs Üiş doçument on UYAP Iıformatioı §ystom at http://vatanda§.uyap.8ov.tr wiü 0u0+d6w - GDp§roh - €OBıQD - 36sfJE=,

415

(5) NOT TO APPLY Article 52/4 of the Turkish Penal Code no. 5237 to the accused

considering the economic and social stafus of the accused and warn the accused about the

application of Article 106/3 of the Law no. 5275, amended by Article 8l of the Law no. 6545

on 0612812014, in case of non-payment of a criminal fine (the accused was warned by means

of the interpreter),

(6) APPLY the paragraphs 1, 2, and 3/l of the Turkish Penal Code no.5237 to the

accused, considering the annulment decision dated l0l08l20l5 of the Constitutiona] Court and

the amendment by Article 10 of the Law no 7242 entered into force 04ll5l2020,

(7) NOT TO DEFER the announcement of the verdict under Article 231 of the Code

of criminal procedure no. 527l because the conditions axe not met and the aruıorıncement of

üe verdict about the accused has been deferred in the criminal case with case no 20201238 arıd

decision no202ll|72 of the Criminal Court of First Instance no 2 of Eskişehir,

(8) SUSPEIıID the sentence of imprisonmg6 imposed on the accused under Article 5l

of the Turkish penal code no.5237 because the court is convinced that the accused would not

commit such a crime again in the future due to his regret in the hearings and üe fact that t}ıe

accused had not been conviçted and sentenced to imprisonment for more than 3 monüs of an

intentional erime, and his regret in the hearings;

IMPOSE A PROBATION PERIOD OF' 1 YEAR Al[D 2 MONTHS for üe accused

under Article 51/3 of the Turkish Penal Code no.5237,

NOT TO IMPOSE any obligation or ASSIGN an expert for the probation period

considering the personalıty and social status of the accused under Article 5116 of the Turkish

Penal Code no. 5237,

(9) INI'ORM the Criminal Court of First Instance no 2 of Eskişehir when the verdict is

finalized because it is understood that the announcement of the verdict about the accused has

been deferred in the criminal case with case no 20201238 and decision no 20211172 and the

accused committed a crime during his probation period according to the criminal record of the

accused,

(10) COLLECT the attorney's fee of TRY 5,100.00 calculated under the Attomey's

Fee Minimum Tariffof 2022,wtichis in force at the date of the verdict, from the accused and

GIVE this amount to the participant because the latter is represented by an attorney,

(11) STORE 1 wd my passport ulta hard disk and a coıuıection cable, which are

registered in the file numbercd2022l239 of the Propeğ and Evidence Unit ofthe Chief Public

Prosecutor Office of Eskişehiı, A§ EYIDENCE IN THE'. FILE,

(12) COLLECT TRY 31.50 FROM THE ACCUSED, which is for the expense of 2

notifications paid by the State, and REGISTER it as revenue, without including the fee of the

interpreter assigned for üe accused who does not speak Turkish under Article 32415 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure no.527l,

(13) SEND to the relevant judicial law unit the defender-defendant decision tracking

form filled after the finalization of the verdict together with a copy of the finalized verdict.

The verdict was clearly read and duly explained. The accused and participant may

APPEAL against the verdict before the Our court or through a petition or a declaration written

by a clerk, approved by a judge, and submitted to the Criminal Court of First Instance of his

place of residence within 7 days from the pronorıncement of the verdict. 0|ll3l2022

Clerk 126356

Judge ll9l74

*This document hu been signed with an electronk signaiure under Law No. 5070.

oÖuzhan Emre PARLAK

l hereby certify that l have tranglated

s*"oln1?".İİ",İ-,'-ffiinıiTercüman thg abov_e,nientioned doeumeni

-.İ,ffi.tffi"i,-t,, ilı,l,-,mffi},,;:,H,,i;fl;:h-ı,li

Beyoğlu V,D, 2ş0 67ş0 7610

You can access this doeument on UYAP lnfonnation System at http://vatandas.uyap.gov.tr with 0u0+d6w - GDpSvoh , eoBİQD , 36sf38=.

5l5