What is the Crime of Forgery in a Promissory Note?

The crime of forgery of a promissory note is an offense with serious consequences under criminal law, committed by making unlawful alterations on a promissory note, modifying its content, or using a forged document. Particularly, alterations made on promissory notes (bonos), checks, and other negotiable instruments frequently used in commercial life can lead to disputes between parties and criminal investigations.

Every alteration or modification made on a promissory note does not directly constitute the crime of forgery of a promissory note . For criminal liability to arise, the alteration must carry legal significance, the document must be misrepresented contrary to its actual state, and the perpetrator must act with the intent to use this forged document.

Among the most common situations encountered in practice are:

• Alteration of the promissory note amount,
• Tampering with the numerical figure section,
• Alteration of the maturity date,
• Subsequent addition of text or phrases to the promissory note,
• Alteration of the signature or handwriting,
• Increase of the debt amount,
• Making the promissory note appear as though it were drafted by another person,

are set forth.

For example, in the event that enforcement proceedings are initiated for 500,000 TRY by subsequently altering the numerical figure on a promissory note originally valued at 100,000 TRY, allegations of falsification and forgery regarding the promissory note may arise.

However, the crucial point here is not merely the existence of an alteration on the promissory note. The primary issue that must be investigated in criminal proceedings is by whom this alteration was made and whether the defendant was involved in this forgery act.

---

What Does Falsification Mean?

The term falsification (tahrifat) means the alteration of a document or writing in a manner contrary to the truth. From a legal perspective, falsification is an intervention in a document that alters its existing meaning and produces a result different from the true intent of the person who drafted the document.

In other words, falsification is the creation of a deceptive appearance by making subsequent modifications to an existing document.

Examples of falsifications made on promissory notes include the following:

1. Alteration of the Promissory Note Amount

An example of falsification is when a promissory note originally issued by an individual for 50,000 TL is subsequently altered in the numerical section to read 500,000 TL.

In this case, a discrepancy arises between the actual debt amount of the promissory note and the amount subject to enforcement proceedings.

2. Modification of the Maturity Date

The alteration of the payment date contained in the promissory note may also be evaluated within the scope of falsification.

For example;

• Where the actual maturity date is 01.01.2026,
• and it is subsequently altered to 01.01.2028,

since this can alter the legal consequences of the promissory note, it may become the subject of an allegation of forgery.

3. Addition or Erasure of Text

Subsequent additions to a promissory note such as;

• "received in cash",
• "in consideration of goods",
• "it is a collateral promissory note"

the addition of such statements or the deletion of existing statements may also be subject to examination.

4. Alteration of the Signature

Altering, forging, or portraying the signature on the promissory note as if it belongs to a different person may also constitute the crime of forgery.

---

Does Every Modification Made on a Promissory Note Constitute the Crime of Forgery?

This matter is one of the most frequently confused issues in legal practice.

The mere presence of a physical alteration on the promissory note is not sufficient on its own to convict the defendant.

As required by "the principle of personal liability for crimes", one of the fundamental principles of criminal law, a person can only be held liable for the acts they personally committed.

For example;

If a person has initiated enforcement proceedings on a promissory note acquired via endorsement and it is subsequently alleged that certain alterations were made to the note, this person cannot be automatically held liable for the crime of forgery.

By the court;

• Who drafted the promissory note?
• When was the alteration on the promissory note made?
• At what stage did the alteration take place?
• Was the defendant aware of this alteration?
• Did the defendant knowingly use the forged promissory note?

the answers to these questions must be investigated.

---

The Offense of Fraud by Falsification of a Promissory Note

The alteration made on a promissory note can be evaluated not only in terms of forgery of official documents, but also in terms of the offense of fraud, provided that the necessary conditions are met.

Particularly if the objective is to cause harm to the opposing party by initiating execution proceedings based on a forged or altered promissory note, the elements of the offense of fraud may arise.

The fundamental elements of the offense of fraud are:

• Fraudulent conduct,
• The victim or another person sustaining damage as a result of such fraudulent conduct,
• The perpetrator securing a benefit for themselves or another person,

is sought.

If a promissory note is falsified and used in enforcement proceedings, an evaluation may also be made regarding fraud if the perpetrator's aim is to obtain an unjustified receivable.

Especially in certain circumstances “Public Institutions and Organizations, etc., by means of Using Legal Entities as Instruments for Fraud” provisions may come into question.

Because enforcement offices are official institutions established by the state and tasked with the collection of receivables. Attempting to collect a forged or falsified document through the enforcement mechanism may, in certain cases, be evaluated within the scope of qualified fraud.

However, every case of a forged promissory note does not automatically constitute the crime of fraud. The specifics of the concrete case, the intent of the perpetrator, and the benefit sought to be obtained must be examined in detail.

Which Court Has Jurisdiction in the Crime of Forgery of a Promissory Note?

If a public lawsuit is filed as a result of criminal investigations conducted upon allegations of forgery of a promissory note, determining the court with jurisdiction to hear the case is of great importance.

Allegations of falsification, alteration, or forgery made on a promissory note mostly constitute the crime of forgery of an official document is evaluated within the scope of. As a rule, the competent court for the offenses of forgery of official documents within the scope of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) is High Criminal Court.

Therefore;

• In criminal cases to be filed in situations such as allegations of forgery in a promissory note,
• making alterations on a promissory note,
• using a forged or altered promissory note,
• the existence of forgery in a promissory note subject to enforcement proceedings,

the competent court will generally be High Criminal Court .

Since jurisdiction rules in criminal proceedings pertain to public order, they are taken into account ex officio by the court. In other words, even if the parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the court, the court is obliged to assess its jurisdiction proprio motu.

---

How is the Authorized Court Determined in a Lawsuit for Forgery of a Promissory Note?

In offenses involving forgery of a promissory note, alongside the competent court, the location of the court that will hear the case is also of importance.

In terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the general rule of jurisdiction is that the court of the place where the crime was committed has jurisdiction.

However, in cases such as the falsification of a promissory note and subjecting this note to enforcement proceedings, one of the issues particularly considered in practice is at which enforcement office the promissory note was put into process.

Depending on which enforcement office the promissory note was subjected to proceedings in, the relevant place where this enforcement action was carried out High Criminal Court may be accepted as having jurisdiction.

For example;

• If a promissory note issued in Istanbul
• is submitted to an enforcement office in Ankara and put into proceedings,

depending on the specifics of the case, evaluation by the competent High Criminal Court in Ankara may be in question.

The purpose here is to take as a basis the place where the promissory note, alleged to be forged or falsified, was used for the purpose of producing legal consequences.

---

How is the Defendant's Defense Evaluated in the Crime of Forgery in Promissory Notes?

One of the most frequent defenses resorted to by defendants in forgery of promissory note lawsuits is that they did not make any alterations on the note and were not aware of the falsification.

Particularly in promissory notes issued within the scope of commercial relationships, the defendant may claim:

• "I did not draw up the promissory note."
• "I have no knowledge of the alterations on the promissory note." cryptographic
• "I received the promissory note in its current condition."
• "I was not aware that there was a forgery on the promissory note."

such defenses may be raised.

In this case, it is not sufficient for the court to examine solely whether an alteration exists on the promissory note.

The primary issue that must be investigated is:

whether the forgery on the promissory note was committed by the accused or whether the accused used this forgery knowingly.

In criminal proceedings, for a person to be convicted, all elements of the crime must be established with conclusive and convincing evidence.

---

The Importance of the Commercial Relationship in Forgery of Promissory Notes Lawsuits

In allegations of forgery of promissory notes, the commercial relationship between the parties is examined in detail by the court.

Because promissory notes are frequently used;

• Arising from the sale of goods,
• Arising from a service relationship,
• Arising from a lending transaction,
• Arising from commercial trade,
• Arising from a current account relationship,

it originates.

Therefore, the court first investigates whether a genuine debt relationship exists between the parties.

For example;

If it is claimed that one company purchased goods from another and issued a promissory note in exchange;

• Invoice records,
• Delivery documents,
• Current account records,
• Bank transactions,
• Commercial books,
• The parties' prior transactions,

may be examined.

Because the existence of a genuine commercial relationship is important for understanding how the promissory note came into existence.

Conversely, if there is no commercial relationship between the parties and the origin of the promissory note cannot be explained, the court may make different evaluations.

---

What Does the Court Do Regarding a Defendant Who Denies Forgery on a Promissory Note?

If the defendant argues that no forgery was committed, the court conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence.

The court investigates the following matters:

1. Original Form and Manner in Which the Promissory Note Was Issued

First, an attempt is made to determine the conditions under which the promissory note was issued.

• By whom was the promissory note filled out?
• In whose presence was it signed?
• For what purpose was the promissory note given?
• What information was written at the time of issuance?

answers to their questions are sought.

---

2. Who Held Possession of the Promissory Note?

It is important to determine at what stage the alteration on the promissory note occurred.

For example;

If the promissory note was first given to the creditor and later endorsed to a third party, the period during which the forgery was committed must be investigated.

---

3. Whether the Accused Was Aware of the Alteration on the Promissory Note

In terms of criminal liability, merely using the promissory note is not sufficient.

If the defendant;

• whether they acted knowing about the forgery,
• whether there was an intent to use the forged document,
• whether they attempted to obtain an unfair advantage,

must be established.

---

Liability for Forgery in Promissory Notes Acquired via Endorsement

One of the significant practical issues is the acquisition of an altered promissory note by a third party through endorsement.

For example;

A promissory note issued by Person A,
given to Person B,
Person B may have also endorsed this promissory note to Person C,
and Person C may have initiated enforcement proceedings based on the instrument.

In this case, the liability of Person C must be evaluated separately.

Because whether the subsequent holder of the note;

• knew about the forgery on the note,
• ought to have known about it,
• exercised ordinary care and diligence while acquiring the note,

is of importance.

---

The Indorser's Knowledge or Obligation to Know of the Forgery

It is not possible to hold every holder automatically liable in instruments acquired through indorsement.

Particularly as a requirement of commercial life, many individuals acquire the note not from the original issuer, but from a prior holder.

Therefore, the court focuses on the following questions:

• Was the alteration on the note clearly visible?
• Was it possible for the person receiving the promissory note to notice this alteration?
• Was the promissory note transferred within the scope of regular commercial transactions?
• Was there a prior relationship between the parties?
• Is there evidence that the person who received the promissory note was aware of the fraudulent transaction?

If it cannot be proven that the person was aware of the forgery or acted knowingly, criminal liability may not arise.

The Importance of Forensic Medicine Institution Examination in Forgery of Promissory Note Cases

One of the most critical stages in criminal proceedings conducted under the allegation of forgery in a promissory note is the technical examination of the alterations on the note.

Because it is not possible for the criminal court to render a judgment based solely on the statements of the parties. Whether there is actually a falsification on the promissory note, and if so, by whom this alteration was carried out, must be demonstrated through scientific methods.

Therefore, courts predominantly refer the case file regarding examinations conducted on the promissory note to the Council of Forensic Medicine Department of Physics.

In the examinations conducted by the Council of Forensic Medicine;

• the characteristics of the handwriting on the promissory note,
• the type of pen used to write the texts,
• whether the texts were added or subsequently created,
• alterations in numbers and text,
• whether there are any erasures, scrapings, or additions,
• to whom the signatures belong,
• comparison of handwriting characters,

such matters are evaluated.

---

Is the Presence of Falsification on the Promissory Note Sufficient Alone?

The detection of falsification on a promissory note is not sufficient by itself to convict the defendant.

One of the most crucial aspects in criminal proceedings is the definitive establishment that the crime was committed by the perpetrator.

For example;

It may be determined as a result of a Forensic Medicine examination that the amount of 100,000 TL on a promissory note was subsequently altered to 500,000 TL.

However, if it cannot be determined whether this alteration was made by;

• the accused,
• the aggrieved party,
• a third party,
• or whether it was carried out while the promissory note was in the possession of another person,

convicting the accused solely due to the existence of the forgery is not possible.

In criminal law, a conviction cannot be rendered based solely on the assumption that a person is connected to the crime.

---

Whose Hands Produced the Forgery Must Be Determined

The most critical point in forgery of promissory note lawsuits is determining by whom the forgery was carried out.

The fundamental question the court must investigate is:

“Was the alteration on the promissory note made by the accused?”

A conviction against the accused cannot be rendered without a definitive answer to this question.

For example;

Let a public lawsuit be filed against an individual for uttering a forged promissory note.

In the case file;

• It may have been established that,
• The promissory note was put into enforcement proceedings,
• The victim suffered damage,

has been determined.

However;

• The falsification was made in the handwriting of the accused,
• The accused subsequently interfered with the promissory note,
• The accused was aware of the alteration,

if it cannot be proven, an acquittal must be rendered in favor of the defendant.

---

What is Examined in the Council of Forensic Medicine Physics Specialization Department Review?

Forensic Medicine examinations are not conducted solely to answer the question of whether there has been tampering with the promissory note.

The primary objective is to reveal the nature and source of the falsification.

Specifically examined are;

1. Comparison of Handwriting and Numerals

Whether the handwriting and numbers on the promissory note;

• Are in the defendant's handwriting,
• Whether they were written by the same person,
• Whether subsequent additions were made,

are investigated.

---

2. Pen and Ink Examination

In certain cases, it is investigated whether the writings on the promissory note were written at different times.

For example;

• Whether the main body of the promissory note was written with one pen,
• The subsequently added digit may have been written with another pen,

or tool.

This circumstance is significant in evaluating the allegation of forgery.

---

3. Examination of Erasures and Alterations

On the promissory note/instrument;

• Erasure,
• Scraping,
• Obliteration,
• Overwriting,

it is examined whether such alterations exist.

---

4. Signature Examination

Particularly in cases where the signature is alleged to be forged;

• The defendant's comparison signatures are obtained,
• Signatures on previous official documents are examined,
• Handwriting and signature characteristics are compared.

---

What is the Principle of In Dubio Pro Reo (The Benefit of the Doubt)?

As one of the fundamental principles of criminal law "in dubio pro reo" is the principle.

According to this principle;

Unless a definitive and convincing conviction is formed that a person has committed the crime, a conviction cannot be rendered against the defendant.

In other words;

The mere probability that the defendant committed the crime is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated with definitive evidence that the crime was committed by the defendant.

This principle is of particular importance in forgery of promissory note cases.

Because in many instances;

• While it is understood that there is falsification on the promissory note,
• the person who performed the falsification cannot be determined.

In this case, the evaluation that the court must make;

does not merely consist of the question "Has the promissory note been altered?"

The main question;

must be "Has it been definitively proven that the defendant made this alteration?"

You can read our article on a similar topic titled, what happens if an endorsed check is not paid .

---

How is an Acquittal Ruling Issued in Forgery of a Promissory Note?

Acquittal rulings in forgery of a promissory note cases may be issued for various reasons.

One of the most important grounds for acquittal is the failure to prove that the falsification was carried out by the defendant.

For example;

• There is an alteration in the numerical figure on the promissory note.
• The Council of Forensic Medicine has identified this alteration.
• However, it could not be determined who made the alteration.
• There is no definitive evidence indicating that the accused committed forgery.

In this case, an acquittal must be rendered for the accused.

---

Conditions Required for Acquittal in the Crime of Forgery of a Promissory Note

For the court to render an acquittal, the following matters are generally evaluated:

1. Failure to Prove That the Alteration Was Made by the Defendant

This is the most crucial matter.

The presence of an alteration on the promissory note does not mean that the accused made it.

---

2. Lack of Evidence That the Defendant Was Aware of the Forgery

Particularly in promissory notes acquired through endorsement;

• Whether the accused was aware of the forgery,
• Whether it was used knowingly,

are investigated.

If knowing use cannot be proven, criminal liability does not arise.

---

3. Authenticity of the Commercial Relationship

If there is a genuine commercial relationship between the parties, the emergence process of the promissory note is evaluated differently.

For example;

• An actual delivery of goods,
• A genuine debt relationship,
• Prior commercial transactions,

may indicate that the defendant lacked the intent to commit forgery.

---

Assessment of the Court as a Result of the Trial

In lawsuits concerning forgery of promissory notes, the court must evaluate all evidence collectively.

Court;

• The statements of the complainant,
• The defense of the defendant,
• The original promissory note,
• Expert and Forensic Medicine reports,
• Commercial records,
• The enforcement file,
• the economic relationship between the parties,

evaluates as a whole.

Rendering a decision based solely on a single piece of evidence will not be in compliance with the law.

---

Conclusion: Conclusive Evidence is Mandatory in Allegations of Forgery in a Promissory Note

The most crucial aspect of the crime of forgery in a promissory note is not merely the presence of an alteration on the note.

For criminal liability;

• The existence of the falsification,
• The capacity of this falsification to produce legal consequences,
• The defendant's connection to this transaction,
• The demonstration of the defendant's intent,

is required.

Even if there is a falsification in the promissory note, if it cannot be proven that this alteration was made by the defendant or that the defendant knowingly used the forged note, an acquittal must be rendered pursuant to the principle of in dubio pro reo (the defendant benefits from the doubt).

Therefore, it is of great importance for individuals facing allegations of forgery of a promissory note that the incident be evaluated not only with respect to alterations on the instrument itself, but also in terms of the drafting process of the note, the commercial relationship between the parties, and all available evidence.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Regarding the Crime of Forgery of Promissory Notes

Is tampering with a promissory note a crime?

Yes. Making untruthful alterations on a promissory note in a manner that produces legal consequences may constitute the crime of forgery of an official document, provided that the statutory elements are met.

---

Is it a crime to initiate enforcement proceedings on a forged promissory note?

Initiating enforcement proceedings knowingly on a forged or tampered promissory note may be evaluated under the crimes of forgery of an official document and fraud, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

---

Which court has jurisdiction over the crime of forgery of a promissory note?

As a rule, the court with jurisdiction in criminal cases brought for the forgery of a promissory note is the High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi).

---

How is tampering on a promissory note detected?

Alterations on a promissory note are generally determined Council of Forensic Medicine Department of Physics or as a result of expert witness examinations.

---

Is a penalty automatically imposed if there is tampering on the promissory note?

No. Who committed the tampering and the accused's connection to this act must be established with conclusive evidence.

---

Is acquittal possible in a forgery of promissory note lawsuit?

Yes. An acquittal can be granted, particularly if it cannot be proven that the falsification was carried out by the defendant or if it cannot be demonstrated that the defendant knowingly used the forged promissory note.

Atty. Batın YILMAZ – Attorney at Law, Istanbul Bar Association