In short
An allegation of a false document is a dispute of the nature of the document and of intent. Not every signature is forgery.
The nature of the document and the intent are disputed. Not every signature is forgery.
The element of fraud is in a separate cluster.
An expert examination may lengthen the file.
Related writings: fraud.
Make the accusation clear with the full identity of the document
A general claim in the direction that "you used a false document" is not enough to prepare a defence. The questions of which document, which dated copy, by whom it was drawn up, and where and in which transaction it was used, should be answered. There may be a draft, a signed copy and a scanned version of the same contract. Which copy the accusation is directed at affects the result.
Before the summons or the statement, the file number and the basic frame of the allegation should be learned. It should be separated whether the document is official or private, whether the original was reached, and whether the claim rests on drawing it up, on changing it, or on using it. If there is a financial transaction connected with the document, or a claim of another offence, these are included in the plan of the defence as well.
The content of a document being wrong, and its being produced as false physically or digitally, are not the same thing. Wrong information being written on a real document, an unauthorised drawing up, the signature being imitated, and a later change, carry separate legal features. Instead of the label "false" used in daily language, the concrete transaction should be examined.
Determine correctly whether the document is official or private
An official document is related to a document that a public officer drew up because of their duty and within their authority, and that has a particular power of proof in the legal order. A private document may arise in transactions between persons or private establishments. A institution logo being in the heading of the document does not by itself mean that it is an official document. The capacity of the person who drew it up, their authority and the function of the drawing up are searched.
An identity, a licence, a diploma, an official minute, a private contract, a deed, an invoice and an internal company form may not be in the same legal class. The type of the document affects the elements of the offence, the condition of use and the frame of the sanction. For this reason the function of the document in the legal order should be built first in the defence.
If the document is not suitable, in appearance, to give rise to a legal result, or if the quality of being deceptive at first sight is disputable, this subject requires a technical and legal examination. It cannot be gone automatically to a result that the offence of forgery did not arise by small errors of form. Not every difference of form is counted as an offence either.
Keep the original of the document and all versions without changing them
The physical original of the document may be examined as to the paper, the ink, the signature, the stamp, an erasure, an addition and the features of the printer. A photocopy alone, or a telephone photograph, loses a part of these details. If the original is with you, a note should not be written on it, its staple should not be changed, and a new stamp or signature should not be added.
In digital documents, technical information such as the original file, the dates of creation and of change, the email metadata, the electronic certificate and the time stamp, matters. Saving the file again, printing the PDF and scanning it, or compressing it in a messaging application, may change the metadata. A copy may be taken for the work. The first file should be kept in a read-only form.
Among the records that should be kept, these may take a place:
- The physical original of the document and all copies
- The email it was sent with, and the attached file
- The conversation of delivery in the messaging application
- The number of the cargo, of the custody or of the paper record
- The history of the steps of the software that prepared the document
- The verification or record screen of the relevant institution
If the document is not with you, where it is and with whom it is should be stated openly. An official request for the original to be reached should be assessed.
Draw out the chain of drawing up and of delivery in chronological order
If the defence rests only on the sentence "the signature is not mine" or "I did not know the document was false", it may stay incomplete. Who the document came from, by whom it was prepared, which changes it passed through, to whom it was delivered, and in which transaction it was used, should be explained in the order of dates.
Answers to these questions may be looked for in the chronology:
- Who created the first draft?
- Who provided the information?
- Where was the signature or the approval taken?
- Through which channel was the document delivered?
- Did the institution or the other side make a verification?
- What was your role when the document was used?
- When did the claim of forgery first arise?
An employee, a company manager, an accountant, an intermediary and the owner of the document may be different persons. The corporate workflow being scattered does not determine criminal responsibility automatically. The person's concrete act and the position of their knowledge are searched. Correspondence, definitions of duty and system authorities may support this separation.
Understand the limits of an examination of the signature and of the writing
To whom the signature or the handwriting belongs may be the subject of an expert examination. For a sound examination, the original of the document and natural and suitable comparison samples that belong to the person are needed most of the time. Documents created earlier, such as a bank form close to the date of the event, a notarial document, an official application or a workplace record, may matter.
It is not correct for the person to write the same signature again and again at home in order to direct the investigation, and to present these pages as a sample. A step of taking a sample in accordance with the procedure of the competent authority may be made. The minute of the step, the number of samples and the conditions should be checked. If there is a health problem, a change of the dominant hand, or another position that affects the signature, it should be documented.
An expert report is not an absolute and indisputable result. The sufficiency of the material of the examination, the method, the ground of the report and alternative explanations may be assessed. If it is needed, a request for an additional report or for a new examination should be rested on concrete technical objections.
Examine separately the claim of knowing it was false and of using it
A person who did not actually draw up the document may be included in the investigation with the claim that they used it knowing it was false. Here it matters how the document reached the person, whether it came from a source that looked reliable, whether it carried open inconsistencies, and the behaviour of verification before the use.
Records that may clarify the position of knowledge are these:
- The explanations of the person who sent the document
- Correspondence of verification with the institution
- A similarity of appearance with earlier real documents
- The internal check made about the document
- The limit of the duty and of the authority at the moment of use
- The steps taken after the suspicion arose
Continuing to use it after learning that there was a problem in the document, and the use before the problem was known, are not assessed the same. When the suspicion arises, the document should be kept, the relevant transaction should be stopped, and a record should be formed. Deleting messages in order to protect the source weakens the defence.
Make the preparation of the statement based on the document and on the role
Before the statement, it should be learned which document and which act the accusation is connected with. General patterns of defence on the internet should not be used. The person's role, the chain of the document and the technical records should be examined together. The help of defence counsel may help the allegation to be separated as to forgery in an official or a private document, use, or other connected offences.
During the statement it is necessary not to recount a technical transaction you do not know as if you had done it. If it is not known with which user account the document was created in the corporate system, a guess should not be made. It may be asked that the questions be clarified. A signature should not be put before the answers are passed correctly into the minute.
The right to remain silent, and the right to ask that evidence in favour be gathered, are assessed according to the structure of the file. For the principles of preparation, the content before giving a statement may be examined. If a new document will be presented, its original, its source and the minute of delivery should be kept.
In claims of a digital document and of an electronic signature, focus on the technical data
A picture of a signature being on a PDF does not mean a document signed with a secure electronic signature. In an electronic signature, the certificate, the time of signing, the result of verification, and whether the document changed after the signature, may be examined technically. To whom the account belongs, and who used the account at the moment of the transaction, are different questions as well.
Email metadata, IP and session records, the logs of the corporate document-management system, the history of versions and the authorities of access matter according to the nature of the file. Because these records may be deleted at the end of a particular period, an early request for preservation may be needed. It is objectionable for the person to try to examine the system themselves and to change the records.
When the scope of the digital examination is determined, personal data and contents unrelated to the file may also come onto the agenda. The minute of delivery of the device, the step of taking an image, and the decision of the examination should be checked. An objection to the technical report should be made concrete over the method and the lack of data, instead of only refusing the result.
Assess separately a claim of fraud or of a financial transaction
It may be claimed that the false document was used to obtain a benefit by misleading a person or an institution. In such an event, a claim of fraud may come onto the agenda beside the forgery. For the offence of fraud, elements such as the trick, the deception, the benefit and the harm are searched separately.
If there is a money transfer, a delivery of goods, a credit, a tax or a tender transaction connected with the document, the financial flow should be added to the chronology. Which account the money went to, who benefited from the transaction, and the person's authority to decide, are important. Only your name being on the document does not explain the whole chain of the transaction by itself.
The connected offences being examined in the same file does not mean that every claim was accepted automatically. The legal relation of the acts, the person's intent and the evidence are assessed separately. The defence should not tear the financial flow and the production of the document apart from each other.
Follow the expert report and the decisions of the investigation
After the prosecutor's office has gathered the original of the document, taken the comparison samples and heard the witnesses, it may have an expert examination made. The preparation of the report changes according to the number of documents, the technical method and the density of the institution. When the report comes into the file, not only the sentence of the result, but the material that was examined and the ground, should be read.
The report may not answer every question about from whose hand the document came, or whether the person knew it was false. The technical finding and the legal responsibility should be separated. If there is a missing document, an unsuitable comparison sample, or an opinion without a ground, an objection in accordance with the procedure may be assessed.
At the end of the investigation, if sufficient suspicion is seen, an indictment may come onto the agenda. If it is assessed otherwise, a decision of no grounds for prosecution may come onto the agenda. For the general course of the process, the guide the prosecutor's investigation is useful. The services and the periods of application should be checked from the text of the decision.
Where the file of the document is read from
In the investigations in Ankara, the original of the document may run in a different institution, the expert examination in another unit, and the step of the statement at a different judicial point. For each delivery, the paper number and the minute should be kept. The movement of the document among the institutions matters for the chain of evidence.
The density of work may affect the period of the report. This position is not a ground for drawing a definite result. The services should be followed by notifying a change of address. The expert report and the new summons should be followed over the file number. The local pace does not change the elements of the offence or the rights of the defence.
A last assessment
In an accusation of a false document, the first aim is to determine the full copy of the document, its type and the context of its use. The original document and the digital records should be kept without being changed. The chain of drawing up and of delivery should be drawn out. Even if the examination of the signature is important, whether the person used the document knowingly, and the connected financial transactions, are assessed separately as well.
This writing is for general information. The official or private nature of the document, its technical features, the person's role and their intent may give rise to a different result in every file. The concrete file should be examined with the current legislation. For the general frame, criminal law, for the preparation of the statement, before giving a statement, and for the connected financial claims, the offence of fraud, may be read together.
The original of the document, the record of the signature and the claim of use are read side by side. A term of imprisonment is not written. The office being in Çankaya does not choose the competent authority. This separation is read from the record. Not every signature is counted as forgery by itself.
Conclusion
This writing is for general information. The document, the period and the procedure of the concrete event should be read separately. There is no promise of a result by heart.