The existence of an unauthorized-electricity accrual does not mean that a person is automatically guilty under criminal law. Under Article 163/3 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), it is examined whether the electricity was consumed without the consent of its owner and in a way that prevents the amount of consumption from being determined, whether the act was carried out by the person concerned, and whether the mental element is present. The basic sanction in the law is imprisonment from one year up to three years. [2]
The source check date of this text is October 9, 2026. It explains the distinction between the company’s consumption receivable and personal criminal liability, and which matters need to be assessed during the investigation.
What Are the Elements of the Offense?
TCK Article 163/3 is a provision on benefit without payment (karşılıksız yararlanma) that also covers electrical energy that can be used on a subscription basis. The examination cannot be completed with the question “Is there a subscription?” alone.
| Examination | Question to ask in the specific file |
|---|---|
| Consumption | Was energy actually consumed in the alleged period? |
| Consent | Is there the consent of the owner of the energy and a valid use relationship? |
| Prevention of measurement | Which interference prevented the amount of consumption from being determined? |
| Perpetrator | Who carried out this act or knowingly continued it? |
| Intent | Did the person act knowingly and willingly with respect to the elements of the act? |
Treating every violation of the regulation as the same as the offense in the criminal code undermines the principle of legality. On the other hand, the presence of a meter does not in itself show that all consumption was correctly determined. The scope of measurement and the actual connection are examined. [2, Art. 2, 20–21, 163]
Meter Malfunction, Unauthorized Switching On and the Neighbor’s Line
A meter malfunction differs from an interference made for the purpose of preventing measurement. The technical cause of the malfunction and the user’s knowledge and conduct must be investigated. A low consumption chart alone does not show who made the interference.
Switching on, without permission, electricity that was disconnected in accordance with the legislation may lead to a finding of unauthorized use under EPTHY. In criminal liability, however, the conditions of TCK Article 163/3 are sought separately. The debt for the price of electricity and consumption that prevents measurement cannot be used in place of one another. [1, Art. 42][2]
With regard to electricity used with a neighbor’s permission, it is also not sufficient to look only at the neighbor’s consent. The consent of the owner of the energy, the determinability of the consumption belonging to the user and the nature of the connection may be discussed. Barış Işık’s academic study of the offense of benefit without payment shows the case-law and legality debates in the interpretation of the measurement condition. This debate shows that not every use after the meter should automatically be regarded as non-criminal or as criminal. [5, in particular pp. 2071–2073]
The details of residential examples are in the neighbor line and apartment guide.
Is the Subscriber, Owner and Company Manager Automatically the Perpetrator?
Under TCK Article 20, criminal liability is personal. The question in whose name the meter is registered is important; however, it does not replace the question of who carried out the act and with whose knowledge it was continued. Not everyone living in the same home can be regarded as the perpetrator of the offense merely because they live together. [2]
If there was a change of tenant, a transfer of the workplace, or the interference was made in an earlier period, a timeline should be built. Lease and handover documents, usage records, the work schedule, witnesses and the technical report are assessed together. Defenses such as the person being elsewhere should also be presented with real and verifiable documents.
The company’s debt and the personal criminal liability of the manager or an employee are separated. The status of manager does not of its own accord prove an order, participation or knowledge. On the other hand, the fact that the person who personally carried out the act is not the official subscriber does not automatically remove criminal liability either.
Defense in the Investigation and Prosecution
The starting point of the defense is learning the alleged act and period. The record, photographs, video, meter and laboratory report, consumption statement and user information should be examined together. Reading only the total amount calculated by the company is not sufficient.
In criminal procedure there are safeguards such as the benefit of defense counsel, the right to learn the accusation, and the right to remain silent. If a statement is to be made, known events must be separated from speculation; definitive information must not be given about an interference that was not seen. Producing a false document or witness is not a defense. [3, Art. 147, 149]
Matters to Be Clarified in the Technical Examination
- Whether the examined meter is the same as the meter at the scene.
- The nature of the interference and its effect on the measurement of consumption.
- Why the possibility of a malfunction or connection error was accepted or rejected.
- Whether the time at which the interference began can be determined.
- The person’s actual use in the relevant period and the link to the interference.
- The basis and items of the damage calculation in the criminal file.
The defense should address the technical debate and the link to the person together. Even if an interference affecting measurement is found, the attribution of it to the defendant is separately reasoned. A conviction must be based on lawful evidence discussed at the hearing. [3, Art. 217, 223]
The Allegation of Breaking a Seal
Breaking a seal under TCK Article 203 is an offense with separate elements. It is examined by whose order, law or competent authority, and for what purpose, the seal was placed; whether it was broken or conduct contrary to its purpose of placement occurred; and to whom the act belongs. The absence of any given plastic tie does not mean that all the conditions are automatically met. [2]
If both benefit without payment and breaking a seal are alleged in an electricity file, a separate answer must be given to each accusation. The sealing record, date, number, image and authority information are important. It should not be assumed that a payment of damages made for one offense automatically eliminates the other accusation.
How Is Effective Repentance Applied?
TCK Article 168/5 contains a special provision for benefit without payment. If the perpetrator, instigator or aider shows repentance and fully compensates the relevant damage, different consequences arise depending on the stage. [2]
| Stage of payment and repentance | Consequence in the law |
|---|---|
| Before the investigation is completed | If its conditions are met, a public prosecution is not brought |
| Until judgment is rendered | If its conditions are met, the penalty is reduced by up to one third |
The law states that the same person cannot benefit from this provision more than twice. It cannot be said that “the file closes with every payment” or that “the same result arises after the hearing, too.” The completion of the investigation and the judgment stage should be followed carefully in the specific file.
Which Damage Must Be Fully Remedied?
The total on the company’s invoice and the damage to be taken as the basis for effective repentance in the criminal file should not be accepted as the same with respect to legal basis and calculation items. By examining the amount of energy, the period, taxes and the nature of the increased items, an auditable damage calculation should be requested. Determining the necessary amount, the place of payment and documenting the payment in the file should be carried out together.
Partial payment does not mean that the condition of full remedying in Article 168/5 is automatically fulfilled. Concluding an installment agreement with the company may not produce the same result in the criminal file before all the installments are paid. The payment option should be assessed together with its effects on the defense and on the objection to the debt.
Academic studies also address the special structure of this provision and the distinction between the investigation and the judgment. Mehmet Faruk Koçak’s work is a complementary source for the personal nature of criminal liability and the debates on effective repentance; it does not replace the current text of the law. [6, pp. 121, 125]
Acquittal, Non-Prosecution and the Civil Lawsuit
The result in the criminal file and the consumption receivable may rest on separate legal bases. For example, the failure to prove personal intent does not mean that all contractual debts disappear. Article 74 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) regulates the relationship of the civil judge to the liability provisions of criminal law and to the acquittal decision. [4]
On the other hand, the material facts established in the criminal decision must not be disregarded. On what ground the decision was given is important: whether it was accepted that the event did not occur, that the defendant did not commit the act, or that the criminal conditions could not be proven. Not every receivable lawsuit can be concluded merely because the heading of the decision is “acquittal.”
Criminal Record, Suspension and Civil Service
The later effects of a conviction depend on the type and duration of the finalized judgment, the institutions applied and the special regulations to which the person is subject. Deferment of the pronouncement of judgment, suspension of the prison sentence and a judicial fine do not produce the same legal consequences. The provisions in force on the date of the decision and the transitional rules must be examined separately. [2][3]
For civil service, Article 48/A-5 of Law No. 657 contains conditions concerning imprisonment of one year or more for an intentionally committed offense and, in addition, for the offenses listed. The label “unauthorized electricity” is not sufficient on its own; whether the conviction is for benefit without payment or for another offense, the resulting sentence and the special professional provisions are assessed. A definite promise that “it will not be an obstacle” must not be given. [7]
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Not Paying an Electricity Debt Constitute This Offense?
Mere difficulty in paying is not the same as consumption that prevents measurement under TCK Article 163/3. All the elements of the offense are investigated.
If the Subscription Is Not in My Name, Will There Be No Investigation?
The absence of an official subscription does not by itself provide protection with respect to the person who carried out the act. The specific conduct of the perpetrator is decisive.
If I Reach an Agreement with the Company, Will the Prosecutor’s File Definitely Close?
No. A private agreement is not the same thing as the stage, full payment and other conditions of TCK Article 168/5. The legal consequence in the file is assessed separately.
Should I Pay the Whole Invoice Immediately?
First, the accusation of the offense, the damage calculation, the stage and the legal effect of the payment options should be determined. A criminal outcome cannot be guaranteed without examining all the company’s items.
Conclusion: Test the Technical Claim and Personal Liability Together
At the center of the criminal file is not only the meter or the invoice but a specific person’s specific act and its relationship to the elements in the law. The defense should make the technical finding, the period of use, intent and the damage calculation visible separately. If there is an option of effective repentance, assessing the time limit and payment conditions in a timely manner is also part of this examination.
For the technical review of the record, see the detection guide; for liability for the debt, the subscriber and user guide; and for the general framework, the main guide.
Sources and legal bases
- Electricity Market Consumer Services Regulation (Elektrik Piyasası Tüketici Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği). Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK) / Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi). May 30, 2018 / 30436; in particular Articles 42–49 and 52, including the amendments of January 14, 2025 / 32782.
- Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu). Legislation Information System / Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı). Articles 2, 20–21, 64, 163/3, 168/5, 203.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 147, 149, 217, 223; the procedural and transitional provisions at the date of the decision.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 49–61, 72, 74, 77–82, 112, 146–147, 195–202.
- Barış Işık, The Offense of Benefit Without Payment (Karşılıksız Yararlanma Suçu). Selçuk University Faculty of Law Journal (Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi) / DergiPark. 2021, 29(3), pp. 2051–2086; DOI: 10.15337/suhfd.936246; relevant pp. 2071–2073. Full text.
- Mehmet Faruk Koçak, Offenses of Benefit Without Payment (Karşılıksız Yararlanma Suçları). Marmara University Faculty of Law Journal of Legal Research (Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi) / DergiPark. 2019, 25(1), pp. 97–128; sections on personal liability and effective repentance.
- Law No. 657 on Civil Servants (657 sayılı Devlet Memurları Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Article 48/A-5; assessment on the basis of the offense and the resulting sentence.