New debate on the 12th Judicial Package: Opposition proposes separate criminal regulation for 'IBAN victims'

The "IBAN victims" regulation, which is expected to be discussed in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) this week as part of the 12th Judicial Package, has become a subject of debate in the dissenting opinions of opposition parties. The regulation provides for a reduction in sentences for individuals who knowingly allow their bank account, IBAN, credit card, or payment system information to be used by others.

According to the proposal, if the act of fraud or aggravated fraud is limited solely to the provision of bank accounts to others, the sentence will be reduced by half. The opposition, however, believes that this approach will not resolve the problem in all its aspects.

According to a report by Canan Sakarya from Ekonomi Gazetesi, the evaluations of the CHP, DEM Party, and the New Way Group (Yeni Yol Grubu) emphasized that treating individuals who allow their accounts to be used by criminal organizations and the actual perpetrators of the fraud crime within the same legal framework undermines the sense of justice. The opposition proposed that the act of allowing one's bank account, payment instrument, or identity information to be used by others, while knowing or foreseeing that it will be used in a crime, should be regulated as an independent crime in the Turkish Penal Code.

ACTUAL PERPETRATORS MUST BE DISTINGUISHED FROM ACCOUNT HOLDERS

In the CHP's dissenting opinion, it was stated that in cases of aggravated fraud in particular, the actual perpetrators of the crime hide their own identities, while economically disadvantaged individuals allow their bank accounts or digital wallets to be used for low commissions. It was noted that these individuals are known in the public eye as "IBAN victims" and often face the same sanctions as the actual perpetrators in current judicial proceedings.

According to the CHP, the actions of individuals who cannot be proven to have participated in the crime of aggravated fraud intentionally or through negligence should be separated from the acts of the crime organizers. Thus, a fairer legal assessment should be made by taking the degree of fault into account.

The DEM Party also argued that merely providing a sentence reduction would not be sufficient. In the party's evaluation, it was noted that creating a separate type of crime for those who allow their accounts or identity information to be used by others, while knowing or foreseeing that it will be used in a crime, would both protect the principle of typicality in criminal law and prevent the application of complicity provisions in cases of conscious participation.

The DEM Party also stated that the main problem in cybercrime investigations is the inability to reach the actual criminal organizations. In the dissenting opinion, it was expressed that investigations are often conducted solely through account holders, whereas organizers could be reached through the effective use of IP records, HTS analyses, MASAK reports, money transfer chains, and other digital evidence.

The New Way Group reported that the regulation is positive in terms of taking into account the grievances experienced by individuals who allow their accounts to be used under the direction of criminal organizations, but that the distinction between crime organizers and individuals who knowingly provide accounts is not sufficiently clear.

The group emphasized that for a solution, in addition to sentence reductions, effective investigation mechanisms should be established, banks and payment institutions should monitor suspicious account movements more strictly, and preventive efforts aimed at raising public awareness should be increased.

News Source: 12punto