The Crime of Unauthorized (Unpaid) Benefit and Its Penalty (Turkish Penal Code Article 163)
What is the penalty for the crime of unauthorized benefit? What is the penalty for illegally using electricity, water, natural gas, a telephone line, or a pay-TV/streaming service without authorization? This guide covers, in detail, the penalty for so-called "electricity theft," the effective-remorse reduction, and current Turkish Supreme Court (Yargıtay) case law on the matter.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit?
- The Penalty for the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit
- Turkish Supreme Court Decisions on the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Is the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit?
The crime of unauthorized (unpaid) benefit is a property offense that occurs when services such as electricity, water, natural gas, or telephone service are used without the owner's consent and in a manner that prevents the true amount of consumption from being determined (i.e., illegally/clandestinely), or when a service accessible through vending/automated machines upon payment is used without any payment being made at all.
Encompassing what was known under the former Penal Code (Law No. 765) as "electricity theft," the crime of unauthorized benefit is now regulated under Article 163 of the Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 5237), within the chapter on "Crimes Against Property." The elements of the crime of unauthorized benefit are as follows:
Illegal Use of Electricity, Water, or Natural Gas (Article 163/3 TCK): For this form of the crime to occur, the electricity, water, or natural gas must be used without passing through a meter. If all of these services were used through a meter, the elements of the crime do not exist. Electricity, water, and natural gas are services used on a subscription basis. If a user, despite using these services without a subscription, installs a meter from the moment they first begin using them, the crime of unauthorized benefit does not occur. This is because the most important element of the crime is benefiting from these services in a manner that prevents the amount of consumption from being determined. If the amount of consumption can be understood without any doubt from a meter the user has externally installed, there is no unauthorized-benefit service at issue. In that case, the person benefiting from the service becomes obligated to pay the relevant institution for it — meaning the dispute shifts out of criminal law and becomes a private-law debt/receivable relationship.
Unauthorized Benefit From Vending/Automated Machines (Article 163/1 TCK): This form of the crime occurs when a service that can be obtained from a vending machine upon payment is obtained without payment. For example, a person who uses a wire to extract a drink from a food/beverage vending machine at a metro station, without paying for it, commits this form of the crime.
Unauthorized Benefit From Telephone Lines or Broadcasts (Article 163/2 TCK): This form of the crime is constituted by benefiting, without the consent of the owner or possessor, from telephone lines, frequencies, or encrypted or unencrypted broadcasts made via electromagnetic waves. For example, a person who cracks the encryption of a platform to which they are not subscribed in order to watch a live sports broadcast commits this form of the crime.
The Penalty for the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit
The penalty for the crime of unauthorized benefit is as follows:
- A person who benefits, without payment, from a service offered through vending/automated machines that is accessible upon payment shall be sentenced to imprisonment of two months to six months, or a judicial fine (Article 163/1 TCK).
- A person who benefits, without the consent of the owner or possessor, from telephone lines or from encrypted or unencrypted broadcasts made via frequencies or electromagnetic waves shall be sentenced to imprisonment of six months to two years, or a judicial fine (Article 163/2 TCK).
- A person who consumes subscription-based electrical energy, water, or natural gas without the owner's consent and in a manner that prevents the amount of consumption from being determined shall be sentenced to imprisonment of one to three years (Article 163/3 TCK).
Compensating the Loss and Effective Remorse
In the crime of unauthorized benefit, if the perpetrator, instigator, or accomplice shows remorse and fully compensates the loss suffered by the victim, the public, or the private legal entity before the investigation is completed, no public prosecution shall be initiated. If the loss is fully compensated before a final judgment is rendered, the sentence to be imposed shall be reduced by up to one-third. However, a person may not benefit from this provision more than twice (Article 168/5 TCK).
What is meant by compensating the loss in the crime of unauthorized benefit is compensating the actual loss, including any applicable taxes. In order for the perpetrator to benefit from the effective-remorse provisions, there is no obligation to pay the separate penalty charges assessed by public or private institutions due to the illegal use.
Conversion to a Judicial Fine, Suspension, and Deferral of the Announcement of the Verdict
A judicial fine is a type of sanction that may be applied either together with, or instead of, a prison sentence for a given crime. Prison sentences imposed under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 163 TCK for the crime of unauthorized benefit cannot be converted into a judicial fine, because the judicial fine is set out as an alternative sanction in those paragraphs — once the court chooses imprisonment among the alternative sanctions, it is not legally possible to subsequently convert that sentence into a judicial fine. However, minimum-term prison sentences imposed for the crimes of illegal electricity, water, or natural gas use under Article 163/3 TCK can be converted into a judicial fine.
Deferral of the Announcement of the Verdict (HAGB) is a criminal procedure mechanism whereby the sentence imposed on the defendant does not produce legal effect during a specified supervision period, and if certain conditions are met during that period, the judgment is annulled entirely, resulting in dismissal of the case. It is possible for a HAGB decision to be issued regarding a prison sentence or judicial fine imposed for the crime of unauthorized benefit.
Suspension of sentence means that the court conditionally waives execution of the imposed sentence in prison. It is possible to apply suspension-of-sentence provisions to a prison sentence imposed for the crime of unauthorized benefit.
Complaint Period, Statute of Limitations, and Mediation
Mediation is an agreement reached between the person accused of a crime and the victim of that crime through a mediator. The crime of unauthorized benefit is subject to mediation if committed against relatives as defined in Article 167 TCK.
The crime of unauthorized benefit is not among the offenses subject to a complaint requirement. The right to file a complaint may be exercised within the statute-of-limitations period for prosecution. Withdrawal of a complaint results in dismissal of the criminal case.
The statute of limitations for prosecution is a criminal-law institution under which, if a certain period has passed since the crime was committed without a case being filed, or if a case was filed but not concluded within the statutory period, the criminal case is dismissed. The ordinary statute-of-limitations period for prosecuting the crime of unauthorized benefit is 8 years.
Competent Court
Jurisdiction to try the crime of unauthorized benefit lies with the Court of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi).
Turkish Supreme Court Decisions on the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit
Below are current and precedent-setting decisions of the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) concerning the crime of unauthorized benefit.
Determining Electricity Consumption and Effective-Remorse Provisions
Regarding a defendant found, via an illegal-electricity-detection report, to have used electricity through the meter after the subscription agreement had been terminated and without entering into a new agreement — considering that the meter used at the residence could always have been replaced by the user, and given that the expert report obtained prior to the reversal (dated 11/03/2014) stated that a sound comparison could not be made between consumption periods — the actual amount of use underlying the charge needed to be determined, as also stated in the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation's decisions of 16/05/2006 (Case 2006/7-137, Decision 142) and 13/06/2006 (Case 2006/7-160, Decision 161). Since the defendant stated they had moved out of the property in question, the exact dates they resided at the address on the date of the offense needed to be determined with certainty; the amount of electricity that should have been consumed up to the date of the offense — and the unauthorized-use charge, taxes included but penalties excluded — needed to be calculated based on undisputed consumption in the same period, consumption at comparable properties in the same area, and the installed capacity and average hours of use stated in the electrical project; and a sufficient supplementary expert opinion needed to be obtained comparing the metered index for the period of use to the determined actual need. If it were determined, based on the expert report, that the defendant acted with intent to unlawfully benefit by preventing the amount of consumption from being determined, then if the institution's loss were paid during the investigation stage, a decision of no grounds for prosecution should be issued pursuant to Article 168/5 TCK; because certain procedural steps that should have been taken at the investigation stage were instead completed at the prosecution stage, the defendant should be allowed a reasonable period to pay the institution's actual loss (taxes included, penalties excluded) as calculated by the expert at the standard tariff, after which the defendant could benefit from effective remorse — and if not paid, the trial would continue based on the evidence in the file. Issuing an acquittal based on an incomplete trial and an insufficient expert report, without following this procedure, constitutes grounds for reversal (Court of Cassation, 17th Criminal Chamber – Decision 2017/15880).
The Loss That Must Be Paid to Benefit From Effective Remorse in the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit
Under Article 168/5 TCK — a special effective-remorse provision applicable to the crime of unauthorized benefit — and in line with the legislature's intent, a public prosecution may not be initiated if the defendant pays the loss suffered by the participating institution (tax included, penalty excluded), as determined or to be determined by the offense report. Where a public prosecution was initiated without the investigating authority notifying the defendant of the payment period and location, without placing the relevant notification document in the file in a manner subject to review, and without giving the defendant the opportunity to prevent the case from being filed — this constitutes grounds for returning the indictment. Where this was not taken into account and the indictment was accepted, and it was later established during the trial that the defendant had paid the debt before the prosecution stage concluded, the principle of "no reversion from a completed stage" (safhadan dönülmezlik) required a dismissal decision along with the mandatory recording of that dismissal in the criminal record. Failure to do so constitutes grounds for reversal (Court of Cassation, 6th Criminal Chamber, 2022/6677 E., 2022/16053 K.).
Insufficient Investigation of an Illegal Water Use Allegation
Where a defendant claimed to be living abroad, but no police investigation was conducted to determine who resided at the property on the date of the offense, and — if the defendant did in fact reside there — no on-site inspection was conducted to determine the installed capacity, nor was an expert asked to calculate the average water usage expected during the unregistered period based on normal use and compare it with the amount recorded by the registered meter, in order to assess whether the defendant acted with intent to unlawfully benefit — the defendant's legal status needed to be determined based on that assessment. If the offense were established, the institution's actual loss (tax included, penalty excluded) arising from the report needed to be calculated by an expert, and the defendant needed to be clearly notified of the amount that had to be paid, along with notice that no penalty would be imposed under Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6352 if that loss were compensated — after which a reasonable period had to be granted and a decision issued accordingly. Issuing a decision without following this procedure, based on an incomplete investigation and review, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 17th Criminal Chamber – Decision 2017/1775).
The Notification Requirement in the Crime of Illegal Electricity Use
For crimes of unauthorized benefit committed after July 5, 2012 (the effective date of Law No. 6352), under Articles 163/3 and 168/5 TCK, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office is required, at the investigation stage, to have an expert calculate the participating institution's actual loss (tax included, penalty excluded), specify that amount to the defendant, grant a proper period, and notify the defendant that "no public prosecution will be initiated if the institution's actual loss, as calculated by the expert, is fully compensated before the investigation is completed." If the institution's actual loss is fully compensated within the period granted following that notification, and before the investigation is completed, this constitutes a condition for prosecution, meaning no public case may be filed under Article 168/5 TCK. If this notification was not made at the investigation stage but the defendant fully compensates the participating institution's loss during the prosecution stage, that payment is to be treated as though it had been made at the investigation stage, and the case must be dismissed under Article 223/8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) for failure to meet the conditions for prosecution. In the specific case at hand, although a payment notice was issued to the defendant at the investigation stage, it failed to specify the place and reasonable period for payment; nevertheless, the defendant compensated the complainant institution's loss during the prosecution stage. Accordingly, since no public case may be filed against a defendant who compensates the loss during the prosecution stage despite not having received a proper payment notice, the case should have been dismissed for failure to meet the conditions for prosecution rather than proceeding to a written conviction — this constitutes grounds for reversal (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber, Case 2025/6284 – Decision 2025/13055).
Similarly, in a case where the defendant paid the institution's loss during the prosecution stage without having received a statutory notice at the investigation stage, the case should have been dismissed under Article 223/8 CMK for failure to meet the conditions for prosecution rather than proceeding to a written conviction — this too constitutes grounds for reversal (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber, Case 2025/6200 – Decision 2025/13050).
Regarding a defendant against whom a report was drawn up on 06.09.2012 for using electricity by causing the meter's phase input and output to touch one another — given that Article 168/5 TCK provides that no public case may be filed if the defendant compensates the institution's loss as calculated at the standard tariff (tax included, penalty excluded) — proceeding with the case without the complainant authority and investigating bodies clearly notifying the defendant of the period and location for payment of the illegal-use charge, without placing the notification-service document in the file in a manner allowing review by the Court of Cassation, and without giving the defendant the opportunity to prevent the filing of a public case, was unlawful. The defendant should have been notified of the institution's loss as calculated by the expert and given the opportunity to pay it, with a subsequent determination as to whether the effective-remorse provisions applied (Court of Cassation, 13th Criminal Chamber – Decision 2016/117979).
Failure to notify the defendant of the illegal-use charge calculated by the expert at the standard tariff, grant a reasonable period for payment, and then assess whether a decision of no penalty should be issued under Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6352 — instead proceeding with an incomplete trial and issuing a written decision — is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/19553).
Illegal Electricity Use and the Crime of Breaking a Seal
According to a report dated 15.12.2010, it was determined that the meter at the defendant's residence had been prevented from turning by having its neutral wire cut. The expert report indicated a clear difference between consumption before and after the report date, and that the electricity that should have been used given the installed capacity of the home was consistent with the post-report consumption. It was established that the defendant paid the illegal-use charge within the statutory period. Accordingly, a decision of no penalty should have been issued under paragraph 2 of Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6352 for the established crime of unauthorized benefit, rather than an acquittal; and regarding the charge of breaking a seal, the participating institution should have been asked whether a properly executed sealing report existed from before the date of the offense, with a conviction to follow if such a report existed, rather than issuing an acquittal based on an incomplete review — the failure to do so is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 13th Criminal Chamber – Decision 2016/11731).
Investigating an Allegation That an Illegal, Hidden Line Was Installed Without the Defendant's Will
Where a report was drawn up alleging illegal electricity use via a line run from a junction box outside the sealed meter, in a home the defendant occupied as a tenant, and the defendant claimed in their defense that they had wanted to obtain the subscription from the landlord, that the landlord had refused, and that a hidden line had apparently been installed during the building's construction — the landlord's statement on the matter should have been obtained, and an expert report should have been obtained regarding how the illegal electricity use described in the report actually occurred, before assessing the defendant's legal status. Issuing a written decision based on an incomplete review, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 13th Criminal Chamber – Decision 2016/11155).
Failure to Reconnect a Sealed Electricity Meter Despite Payment of the Debt
Where the defendant stated that their meter had been sealed due to an electricity debt, that their power had remained cut off for approximately one year, that they subsequently paid their debt to the institution, that officials said they would reconnect the power but no one came, and that — having small children at home — they made their own effort to turn the power back on, and used it once they saw it had come on, believing there would be no problem — the institution should have been asked, in writing, whether the electricity debt underlying the sealing report dated 04.01.2012 had been paid, when it was paid if so, and whether the power was reconnected on that same date following payment of the debt. The evidence should then have been assessed as a whole to determine the defendants' legal status. Issuing a written conviction based on an incomplete investigation, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 22nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2016/2923).
Illegal Water Use in a Village Is Not a Crime, But a Misdemeanor
Regarding a defendant against whom a report was drawn up for using water illegally without a meter, where the defendant stated at all stages that they did not use the property lacking a water meter, and a report drawn up by police officers dated 07.03.2013 stated that the property in question had been vacant for approximately 10–15 years — it first needed to be determined with certainty whether the defendant used water from that property. If it was determined that the defendant did use water from the property, then — because the location was a village — the defendant's act of disrupting the established water-use system fell within the scope of Law No. 7478 on Village Drinking Water (as amended by Law No. 5728) and was to be treated as a misdemeanor rather than a crime, with the defendant's legal status to be determined accordingly. Issuing a written decision based on an incomplete investigation, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 13th Criminal Chamber – Decision 2016/1995).
Multiple People Using the Same Illegal Electricity
Where a report on illegal electricity use concerned a building in which three apartments and one place of business shared electricity through a single meter, an investigation needed to be conducted to determine who had been responsible for the meter on the date of the offense; complaints needed to be filed against the identified individuals, and if public cases were filed, the cases needed to be joined, with the defendant's legal status determined accordingly. Issuing a written acquittal based on an incomplete trial, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/21245).
Investigating Who Actually Used the Property Where Illegal Electricity Was Used
Where the defendant claimed to have moved out of the property referenced in the report, and an address information report indicated the defendant did not reside there on the date of the report — but that report was based on unverified statements — a police investigation needed to be conducted to determine who actually resided at the property on the date of the offense, with the defendant's legal status determined accordingly. Issuing a written decision based on an incomplete investigation and review, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/20687).
Using Electricity Through a Neighboring Shop's Meter Is Not a Crime
Where the defendant claimed to have used electricity by running a line from the meter of the shop next to their place of business, and the neighboring shop owner corroborated this defense, the witnesses who signed the report needed to be heard and an on-site inspection conducted to determine whether the defendant actually used electricity by running a line from, and passing through the meter of, the neighboring shop. If it was determined that this occurred, the act should be treated as a private-law dispute and the defendant acquitted; if not, the installed capacities of the property in question and of the business allegedly supplying electricity needed to be determined, and the resulting figures compared with past usage and billed amounts to determine whether illegal use occurred and whether the defendant acted with intent to unlawfully benefit. Issuing a written decision based on an incomplete investigation and review, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/20659).
Where an illegal/irregular-electricity-use report indicated that the defendant had turned back on electricity that had been cut off due to a debt and used it through the meter, while the defendant claimed not to have used illegal electricity and that all electricity used had passed through the meter — in order to determine whether the defendant acted with criminal intent, consumption records from at least one year before and one year after the date of the offense needed to be obtained, an on-site inspection conducted if necessary to determine installed capacity, and an expert report obtained on whether the index figure stated in the illegal-electricity-use report was consistent with the installed capacity at the property — with a determination, based on that report, of whether the defendant acted with intent to unlawfully benefit. Issuing a written decision based on an incomplete investigation, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/20287).
Where the defendant's act consisted of drawing electricity, without the consent of the complainant (their neighbor), from the output of a meter installed at a home the complainant had inherited from their father, for use at a business the defendant operated — since no subscription relationship could be established between the defendant and the complainant, this did not constitute the crime of unauthorized benefit under Article 163/3 TCK. Nor did it constitute theft, since paragraph 2 of Article 141 TCK (which had treated all economically valuable forms of energy as movable property) had been repealed by Article 105 of Law No. 6352. Accordingly, the matter was a private-law dispute, and the defendant should have been acquitted. Issuing a decision of no penalty in writing, rather than an acquittal, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/5837).
Turning Back On a Meter That Had Been Cut Off Due to a Debt
Where an illegal-electricity-use report drawn up following an institution inspection stated that the defendant had "turned back on electricity that had been cut off due to a debt and used it," an on-site inspection needed to be conducted to determine the installed capacity via an expert, and this needed to be compared with the consumption index recorded in the removal/installation sealing report from the date the electricity was cut off, in order to determine whether the meter had been tampered with in any way — before assessing whether the defendant acted with intent to unlawfully benefit and determining the defendant's legal status accordingly. Issuing a written acquittal based on an incomplete investigation and review, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/19991).
Investigating Criminal Intent in Unregistered Electricity Use
Where an illegal-electricity-use report drawn up following an inspection of the defendant's residence stated that "unregistered electricity was being used" — given that a meter not registered with the institution could have been changed by the user at any time — in order to determine whether the defendant acted with intent to unlawfully benefit, a police investigation needed to determine from what date the defendant had resided at the property, and when the meter in question had been installed, in order to establish the period of illegal use. An on-site inspection then needed to be conducted to determine, via an expert, the installed capacity, and to compare it with the meter's consumption based on the date it was installed, in order to determine whether the meter had been tampered with — before determining the defendant's legal status accordingly. Issuing a written acquittal based on an incomplete investigation and review, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/19989).
Where a case was filed against a defendant on the allegation of using illegal electricity through a meter not registered with the authority — given that such a meter could always have been tampered with by the defendant — headman's-office (muhtarlık) records, and documents relating to telephone and water subscriptions, needed to be obtained and reviewed, with a police investigation conducted if necessary, to determine from what date and for how long the defendant had used the meter in question. Based on that period, an expert needed to determine whether the meter's recorded consumption was consistent with the installed capacity and with consumption before and after the detection of the offense, in order to determine whether the defendant had tampered with the meter and therefore whether they acted with intent to unlawfully benefit — before determining the defendant's legal status accordingly. Issuing a written decision based on an incomplete investigation, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/19607).
Where it was not conclusively established whether the defendant bore responsibility for the business on the date unregistered use was detected (11.01.2010), and the defendant claimed at all stages to have left the partnership operating that business in February 2009 — the business's tax records and other documents held by official institutions needed to be reviewed to determine responsibility. If the defendant was found responsible, the institution's loss needed to be calculated by an expert at the standard tariff (excluding taxes and penalties), with notice given that a decision of no penalty would be issued under Provisional Article 2/2 of Law No. 6352 if that loss were compensated, and a reasonable period granted for payment — before the defendant's legal status was determined accordingly. Issuing a judgment based on an incomplete trial, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/18733).
Notifying the Institution That an Electricity Meter Was Defective
Where the defendant stated that, because the meter was located outside, they had not noticed it was defective; that upon the meter malfunctioning, they informed the landlord, but the landlord did not attend to the matter; and that the defendant themselves handed the meter over to officials of the distribution company — in order to verify the truth of these claims, the landlord's statement needed to be obtained as a witness, and the participating institution needed to be asked, in writing, whether the defendant had in fact handed the meter over to them — before a judgment was issued. Issuing a written judgment based on an incomplete investigation, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2015/20125).
Notification of Loss Compensation and Preparation of the Indictment in Illegal Electricity Use
Under Article 170/2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the public prosecutor is to prepare an indictment if the evidence gathered at the conclusion of the investigation stage creates sufficient suspicion that a crime was committed, while Article 174 exhaustively lists the grounds on which an indictment may be returned. Where a public case was filed against a suspect determined, via an illegal-use detection report, to have used illegal natural gas through a bypass connection without a meter — the evidence gathered created sufficient suspicion to justify preparing an indictment. Although paragraph 5, added to Article 168 TCK, provides that no public case shall be filed if the loss is fully compensated before the investigation is completed, there is no statutory requirement that the investigating public prosecutor notify the suspect regarding compensation of the loss. Returning the indictment on the grounds that no such notification was given — despite the absence of any legal requirement to give it — and rejecting the objection to that return, is unlawful; the request to overturn in the interest of the law is well-founded (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision 2017/2541).
Failure to Offer the Opportunity to Benefit From Effective Remorse in the Crime of Unauthorized Benefit
Under Article 168/5 TCK — a special effective-remorse provision applicable to the crime of unauthorized benefit — no public case may be filed if the defendant pays the participating institution's loss (tax included, penalty excluded), as determined or to be determined by the offense report. Where a public case was filed without the investigating authority notifying the defendant of the payment period and location, without placing the relevant notification document in the file in a reviewable manner, and without giving the defendant the opportunity to prevent the case from being filed — this constitutes grounds for returning the indictment. Where this was not taken into account and the indictment was accepted, the defendant should have been given the required notification during the trial, with a subsequent determination as to whether the effective-remorse provisions applied. Issuing a written judgment based on an incomplete process, without following this procedure, is unlawful (Court of Cassation, 13th Criminal Chamber – Decision 2018/64; see also the similar Decision 2018/61).
Unauthorized Benefit Through Illegal Use of Electricity, Water, or Natural Gas
A new paragraph was added to Article 163 TCK ("Unauthorized Benefit"), regulating as unauthorized benefit the act of consuming, without the owner's consent, subscription-based electrical energy, water, or natural gas — an act that, in essence, already fell within the scope of unauthorized benefit. The legislative rationale explained that the penalty for these acts was set at two to five years' imprisonment in order to ensure effectiveness in combating such crimes.
The subject matter of the act regulated in the third paragraph of Article 163 TCK is subscription-based electrical energy, water, or natural gas. This paragraph protects the usage rights of those who pay for electricity, water, or natural gas, so that they are not made to pay more than they should. In this context, the victim of the crime may be the natural or legal person from whose line energy was unlawfully diverted, or it may be the company providing the service. In other words, the victim must be the "owner" of the electrical energy, water, or natural gas.
Subscription-based access is a characteristic of the energy itself; accordingly, this crime may be committed not only against the institution or organization providing the service, but also against a natural or legal person who has become the owner of the energy by establishing a valid subscription agreement and from whose line energy was unlawfully diverted.
For the act of benefiting from electrical energy, natural gas, or water without the owner's consent to occur, it is also necessary that the determination of the actual amount of consumption be prevented. This may occur either where installations that should have been set up on a subscription basis are used to benefit from the energy without ever establishing a subscription relationship, or where a valid subscription relationship exists but the metering installation is tampered with so that it either fails to register consumption at all or registers less than the actual amount. For the crime of unauthorized benefit to be established, it is not necessary for the perpetrator to have tampered with their own meter; the crime may also occur where the perpetrator passes through another subscriber's meter and then runs a separate line, using illegal electricity without passing it through a separate meter, since this equally prevents the amount of electricity used from being determined. What matters is that the amount of illegally used electricity or water is not known; it is immaterial whether the illegally used electricity passed through someone else's meter (Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation – Decision 2022/302).
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the penalty for the crime of unauthorized benefit?
Article 163/1 TCK provides for 2–6 months, Article 163/2 for 6 months–2 years, and Article 163/3 (illegal electricity, water, or natural gas use) for 1–3 years of imprisonment.
How does a defendant benefit from the effective-remorse provisions?
If the institution's actual loss is fully compensated before the investigation is completed, no public case is filed; if compensated before a final judgment is rendered, the sentence is reduced by up to one-third (Article 168/5 TCK).
What is the statute-of-limitations period for the crime of unauthorized benefit? The ordinary statute of limitations for prosecution is 8 years.
Which court has jurisdiction over the crime of unauthorized benefit?
The Court of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi) has jurisdiction.
Is a person who uses illegal electricity always solely responsible?
Not necessarily. Where multiple people used the same illegal electricity, the identities of everyone who had access to or dealt with the meter must be investigated, and each may be assessed separately.