In crimes defined within the scope of Article 5 of Law No. 7258 on the Regulation of Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sports Competitions, obtaining an expert examination on digital materials is considered an an indispensable necessity in judicial decisions for uncovering the material truth and determining the legal status of the defendant.

1. Legal Obligation of Expert Report and Incomplete Prosecution

According to the established jurisprudence of the 19th Criminal Chamber and 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the Regional Courts of Justice; rendering a judgment without obtaining an expert examination on computers, hard disks (logs), flash drives, and other digital items seized from defendants in accordance with Article 134 of Law No. 5271 (CMK) is considered “incomplete investigation and prosecution”. Judicial authorities overturn conviction decisions based on inadequate reports prepared by individuals whose technical expertise is not apparent or whose reports do not include a technical examination, on the grounds that they do not allow for supervision by the Court of Cassation.

2. Technical Aspects to be Investigated in Expert Examination

The expert reports obtained by the courts must be detailed, explanatory, and leave no room for doubt. The decisions emphasize that the expert report should cover the following points:

Access Intensity and Frequency: Determination of dates, daily frequency, and duration of access to illegal betting sites.

Coupon and Bet Amounts: Determination of whether betting coupons were generated via computer, the number of coupons created, and the total bet amounts played.

Printer and Hardware Check: Whether the coupon printing device (printer/barcode printer) located at the workplace is installed on the computer and whether output is taken from this device.

Login Method: Whether “dealer admin login” was performed on betting sites, and with which usernames and numbers access was provided.

Content Analysis: Whether the accessed sites are solely for betting purposes, or if they contain content other than betting; and whether the betting sections of the sites were actually accessed.

3. Determination of the Nature of the Crime and Identification of International Connection

For the distinction between articles 5/1-a and 5/1-b of Law No. 7258 to be made, it is critical to determine whether the accessed sites are foreign-sourced. Supreme Court decisions state that it must be clarified with an expert report whether the defendant facilitated betting games played domestically or abroad, and that rulings made without this determination are unlawful.

4. Role in Evaluating Defendant Defenses

The veracity of defendants’ common defenses, namely that they “did not facilitate betting, but only placed bets personally,” can only be verified with an expert report.

It has been emphasized that if accesses are concentrated only on certain dates or are few in number, this data should not be considered “sufficient to admit that betting was facilitated” and therefore an acquittal should be rendered.

Conversely, in cases where it is determined that tens of thousands of logins occurred and intense coupon activity took place, the defendant’s defense of “I am playing myself” is found to be contrary to the ordinary course of life, leading to a conviction.

5. Secondary Sources and Additional Context

The following additional points stand out in decisions considered as secondary sources:

Illegally Obtained Evidence: It has been stated that even if findings of gambling operation (e.g., “Polo Club v1.0” program, coupons labeled “Dealer=Fener”) are detected as a result of an examination conducted on a computer, if the search warrant is not issued in accordance with proper procedure (i.e., if there is no judge’s decision or prosecutor’s permission), the evidence obtained, including the expert report, cannot be used as a basis for the judgment.

Screenshots: It has been stated that screenshots taken during the investigation phase or superficial examinations alone are not sufficient, and a deep technical analysis conducted via a hard disk image is mandatory.

Printer Connection: The presence of a printer connected to the computer and the technical detection that coupon printouts were made through this printer are considered strong evidence in proving the crime of “providing the opportunity for others to gamble.”

In conclusion; in illegal betting offenses based on sports competitions, the examination of digital materials by expert witnesses and the reporting of access traffic, coupon traffic, and hardware usage are fundamental requirements for the trial to determine the legal status of the defendant. A paper suggestion.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why Is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

(In Illegal Betting Crimes Under Law No. 7258)

In investigations and prosecutions conducted under Article 5 of Law No. 7258 on the Regulation of Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sports Competitions, the fact that cases heavily rely on digital evidence makes this type of crime extremely complex from a technical and legal perspective. Therefore, expert criminal lawyer support is vital in illegal betting crimes.

Especially in practices observed around Istanbul, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, and Gebze; in most cases, digital seizure operations carried out under Article 134 of the CPC (Criminal Procedure Code), the sufficiency of expert reports, claims of unlawful evidence, and incorrect classification of the crime can lead to serious loss of rights.

At this point, a legal evaluation to be made by an expert criminal lawyer plays a decisive role under the following headings:

Review of expert reports:
Determining whether technical reports are superficial or contain an in-depth analysis in accordance with Supreme Court precedents.

Detection of incomplete prosecution and procedural errors:
Identifying whether there are deficiencies in matters such as imaging digital materials, examination methods, and the expertise of the expert preparing the report.

Objections to unlawful evidence:
Ensuring that all evidence obtained is considered unlawful if search, seizure, and digital examination procedures are conducted without a judge’s decision or proper prosecutor’s authorization.

Correct determination of the offense’s classification:
Clarifying whether the defendant’s action should be assessed under Article 5/1-a or Article 5/1-b of Law No. 7258, based on the type of international connection and access.

Supporting the defense strategy with technical data:
Scientifically demonstrating whether the defense of “personal betting” is refuted or not by data on access frequency, coupon traffic, and hardware usage.

In illegal betting investigations conducted on Istanbul’s Anatolian Side, especially in Tuzla and surrounding districts, defenses lacking technical expertise have a high probability of resulting in conviction. Therefore, expert criminal lawyer support proficient in digital evidence interpretation and Supreme Court practices is essential for protecting the right to a fair trial.

In this field, 2M Law Office provides professional legal support, based in Istanbul / Tuzla, for investigations and cases concerning illegal betting offenses under Law No. 7258, specifically on the legal review of expert reports, identification of procedural irregularities, and the formation of an effective defense strategy.