This crime, which occurs when the regulations under the Electronic Communication Law are violated, has become quite widespread today. Mobile phone lines opened against the knowledge and will of the person are used in the activities of fraudsters and cause many people to be victimized.

Article 56 of the Electronic Communications Law No. 5809 regulates which actions in subscription agreements will constitute a crime. According to the aforementioned article:

 1) Private information carrying subscriber identity and contact information and all kinds of software, cards, tools or equipment carrying the electronic identity information of the devices may not be copied, stored, distributed, or used for the purpose of benefiting oneself or others without authorization and permission.

 2) Untrue documents and information regarding subscription information cannot be provided to the operator or its representative doing business on its behalf during subscription registration.

 3) Subscription registration cannot be made by the operator or its representative doing business on its behalf without obtaining a copy of the identity documents required for subscription establishment.

 4) Without the knowledge and consent of the person, subscription establishment or transaction or registration of devices with electronic identification information cannot be made or made by the operator or its representative acting on behalf of the person, and for this purpose, false documents cannot be issued, documents cannot be amended and they cannot be used.

 5) Subscriptions established without the knowledge and consent of the person by issuing or changing false documents cannot be used.

 6) The procedures and principles regarding the establishment of subscription shall be determined by the Authority by regulation.

As it is understood from the above-mentioned article of the law, in order for the offense in question to occur;

• A contract to open a line was issued in the name of the complainant without his/her knowledge by a subordinate or superior telephone dealer.
• The subscription transaction has been made by the operator or its representative (sub or upper telephone dealer) without obtaining the necessary identity documents.
• Although the identity presented by the customer who has come with the request to open the line is at a level that can be understood to be forged in the ordinary course of life, the operator or its representative (sub or upper telephone dealer) who does business on behalf of the operator or its representative (sub or upper telephone dealer) must perform the acts of making the subscription contract.

In practice, this offense is committed by forging the signature of the real line owner and a new mobile phone line is established without the knowledge and will of the real line owner. If a new subscription contract is issued on behalf of the real line owner, the crime in Article 56 of the Electronic Communication Law No. 5809 will occur, and if a subscription contract is issued on behalf of a third party using the information of the line owner, the crime of forgery regulated in Article 207 of the TPC will occur. It is important to determine whose signatures are on the contracts and documents. The Court of Cassation has ruled on this issue  “Pocket the defendant, who operates a telephone dealer, on behalf of the participant 05446.... In the face of the allegation and acceptance that the defendant issued a GSM line with a fake mobile phone subscription contract, the defendant's defense that the employees working in the workplace may have prepared the fake subscription contract subject to the crime, and the understanding that no report has been received on the belonging of the writings and signatures on the subscription contract, in order to determine the truth without any doubt; It is necessary to investigate the employees working at the dealer operated by the defendant on the date of the crime and to obtain their statements about the incident, and again, an expert examination should be made on whether the writings and signatures on the forged subscription contract subject to the crime are the product of whose hand, and the legal status of the defendant should be determined according to the result. ” in the form of “the most important thing in the world”.

 Article 63/10 of the Electronic Communication Law No. 5809 sets the penalty for this act “Those who act contrary to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 56 of this Law shall be punished with a judicial fine from one thousand days to five thousand days; those who act contrary to the second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 56 of this Law and do this work personally shall be punished with a judicial fine from fifty days to one hundred days.”

Competent and Authorized Court:

In the offense of opposition to Law No. 5809, the court in charge is the Criminal Court of First Instance. The competent court is the court where the crime is committed in accordance with Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code.