The defendant, who came to the complainant while shopping at the market, said that his daughter was the general manager of the electronics store Teknosa. The defendant stated that he could buy an LCD television to the complainant due to the campaign. Thereupon, the complainant gave his credit card and password to the defendant. The defendant, who left the complainant's side, went alone to the ATM on the same street and withdrew approximately 1,900 TL from the complainant's credit card. In this situation; it was observed that the accused waited by himself for a while in a calm manner near the ATM instead of quickly leaving the scene after withdrawing the money and taking the card. There is no statement in the statements of the complainant stating that approximately 1,900 TL drawn by the defendant is the television fee and that he hasn't consented to withdraw this amount. It has been decided that the act of withdrawing money against the consent of the complainant by leaving the complainant's side after the accused has seized the credit card subject to crime constitutes the crime of abuse of bank or credit cards regulated in the first paragraph of Article 245 of the TCC. (Criminal General Assembly 2017/172 Case No., 2019/361 Decision No.)
The accused is the victim's private driver. With the credit card given to him to be used in the fuel expenses of the vehicle, it was determined that he took more than the amount of fuel he received from the defendants working as a pump officer at the fuel station and received the difference in cash. It has decided that the defendants working as pump officers are not in a position to know the scope of the consent of the victim, so judgments will not be made according to 245/1. (8. Crime Office 2019/10520 Case No, 2019/12620 Decision No )
The accused received 10,000 TL in cash from the participant with the promise to sell iron. He made an unauthorized transaction from the credit card he gave with the consent of the participant. It has decided that the act carried out in this way constituted the crime of "abuse of bank or credit card" defined in article 245/1 of the TCC. (15. Criminal Office 2018/9105 Case No ., 2020/3531 Decision No.)
The complainant said that the suspect was the second wife of his deceased father. The suspect's father alleged that while he was alive and after his death, he had continuously withdrawn money from his father's bank account without his father's consent. As a result of the investigation initiated with a complaint; ‘‘ TCK 245/1. In order for the crime in article article to occur, bank accounts and cards must be used without permission and without the consent of the person. Again, in Article 245/4-a of the TCK, it was stated that one of the spouses, who did not have a separation decision, used the other spouse's accounts and cards was not a crime. It was decided that the suspect and the account owner were married and there was no separation decision, so there was no crime related to the accused bank and credit cards being used without permission. (8. Crime Office 2019/26796 Case No, 2020/14408 Decision No )
The plaintiff instructed the defendant bank to notify the defendant bank via SMS that the credit card was used by the bank when the sum of the expenditures made within a statement period reached 700,00 TL. It was determined that his client gave his credit card to his brother to use it, but the other defendant ... seized his credit card and used it without his client's knowledge. 245/1 of the TCC, which complies with the action of the defendant according to the article, the decision was approved by the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. In the case at hand, it is determined that the plaintiff has acted in breach of the credit card contract by making his brother use his credit card. However, the plaintiff, who is the holder of the credit card, gave an order to the bank and requested information to be informed by SMS if his / her period expenditures reached 700,00 TL. This instruction has been proven. The first expenditure of the expenses subject to the lawsuit was made by the defendant as 100,00 TL on 18.01.2013, although it exceeded 700,00 TL together with the expenses of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not informed. The defendant continued to shop with his credit card, and the amount subject to the lawsuit was reached. For this reason, since the bank did not fulfill the notification obligation by the bank despite the instruction of the plaintiff, who was a consumer in the expenditures made by ... person, the bank caused the damage to increase in fault. Since the increase of the loss will be prevented if an SMS message is sent by the bank, it should be accepted that the banks, which are trust institutions, are responsible for the loss of the plaintiff, even for slight faults as a requirement of the objective diligence debt. (General Assembly of Law 2017/3092 Case No., 2020/400 Decision No.)
The plaintiff said that he received a credit card from the defendant bank, and that cash was withdrawn from the credit card without his knowledge and consent. He said that he did not withdraw these money. He paid the debt imposed on him by the bank, but he asked for the return of that debt as it did not belong to him. Since the bank must fulfill the duty of care and protection expected in accordance with the contract by providing the environment where the consumer will make a safe transaction, as the banks are trust institutions, they are responsible for even slight faults as a requirement of objective care, and the main duty of the bank is to protect and guard the money left to its protection. Declared that the bank that failed to fulfill its duty of diligence and caused the withdrawal of the money by failing to protect the consumer money was at fault. (19. Law Office 2017/2518 Case No., 2019/457 Decision No.)
The plaintiff's credit card was seized by a third party without the knowledge. Using this information, spending was made over the internet. The defendant bank approved the payment of these expenses, which were made in 8 consecutive transactions, from the credit card account, the expenditures were collected from the plaintiff as a credit card account statement debt and decided that the bank was responsible for the credit card not being used for a long time. (19. Law Office 2016/6536 Case No., 2017/864 Decision No.)