Influence of criminal courts' assesment on wrongdoing to civil court procedure: a joint aspect of proceeding for crack down on infringement of intellectual property rights and on white collar crimes

Particularly when speaking of financial markets, an act or omission during the handling of your assets portfolio which affected your legitimate interests can also be in violation of the criminal law.

 

In the same vein, violation of your industrial and intellectual property rights (“IP rights”) can be pursued both before the civil courts and criminal courts.

 

For criminal proceedings note that unless the prosecutor general is informed of a violation of rules primarily of public interest stemming from , the person in wrong can be pursued solely upon your formal complaint addressed to the prosecutor; in practice, wrongdoings in violation of criminal regulations can remain unattended to unless the person who is directly harmed by the wrongdoing addresses his complaint to the prosecutor general.

 

When this occurs supported by the prosecutor’s decision, a case before the criminal court can be lodged besides the civil case for damages in compensation of your legitimate interests. In cases where public interest is harmed yet along with your legitimate interests as a citizen, your role is active intervention during the process before the criminal court.

 

Especially for abuse at financial markets and violation of IP, despite the independency principle that the judgments of criminal courts and those of civil courts are not binding for the decision process of these two seperate types of court, the rulings of the criminal court and the civil court do influence each other if not binding. This is the case even more so when the cases are heard by specialized courts, such as the criminal and civil courts specialized in infringement of IP rights although each case may have its own particularities depending on the prevailing type of violation before the court.

 

Speaking of financial crimes, e.g. once the criminal court establishes that a client order for a transaction of assets is forgery, the civil court is bound by this judgment of the criminal court. In the same vein, once the specialized criminal court establishes that the plaintiff’s copyright has been infringed, this evaluation is binding for its counter civil court. As a rule of thumb, acquittal of the accused person by the criminal court in the mentioned cases is not binding for the civil court hearing private law claims stemming from the same incidence as heard by the criminal court.

 

According to our experience in practice, an evaluation of the criminal court establishing a fact or of its lack does constitute binding evidence when the criminal court’s assessment is detached of any judgement as concerns wrongdoing or responsibility. This is even more so for violation of IP rights where objective wrongdoing (“culpa”) is sufficient for condamnation under the criminal courts’ larger inquisitory means. Finally, Article 53 of the Turkish Code of Obligations is in support of this opinion when read “a contrario”.